deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] @Transactional
Date Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:28:58 GMT
i thought the same, JTA shouldn't depend on JPA. @Transactional should be
in a tx module then JPA could use it.

wdyt?

- Romain


2012/7/8 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>

> OK, but I am still not sure where to split it. While implementing this, I
> got the feeling, that the @Transactional stuff should completely move out
> of the JPA module. It feeled quite strange that the JTA module depends on
> the JPA module...
>
> I think, I'll push my stuff right after the 0.3 release and than we can
> discuss this at the code-base.
> Maybe I should put all into the JPA module and we split it after agreeing
> to a module structure?
>
> Cheers,
> Arne
>
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 17:48
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg
> Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] @Transactional
>
> +1
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>
> > +1 for JTA module.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>
> > > To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> > deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:47 PM
> > > Subject: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > > @Transactional
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I startet implementing it that way, but I stumbled over another issue:
> > > We get a dependency to the JTA spec and the EJB spec that way. So
> > > our
> > JPA module
> > > only would work with this apis in the classpath.
> > > Do we accept this or are we back on a JTA module?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arne
> > >
> > > -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 15:07
> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > > @Transactional
> > >
> > > if it works fine with CMT +1
> > >
> > > well let's have a try, we'll fix it if it is not enough ;)
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/7/5 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> > >
> > >>  In Seam 2 we:
> > >>
> > >>  * checked if UT was available in JNDI, and used it if it were
> > >>  * checked if there was a CMT transaction, and used it (IIRC this
> > >> wwas  to work around abug)
> > >>  * otherwise tried to use a resource local transaction (e.g. from
> > >>  Hibernate)
> > >>  * allowed the user to override and specify one strategy
> > >>
> > >>  In Seam 3 we did the same.
> > >>
> > >>  So I like option 1.
> > >>
> > >>  On 5 Jul 2012, at 10:03, Arne Limburg wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  > Hi,
> > >>  >
> > >>  > yesterday I startet working on the JTA support for @Transactional.
> > >>  > My current approach is to implement a JtaPersistenceStrategy.
> > >>  > However that leads me to the problem: Who decides which
> > >> PersistenceStrategy should be taken and how should this decision be
> > made?
> > >>  > I have three suggestions:
> > >>  >
> > >>  > 1.      We detect, if a UserTransaction is available, if so, the
> > >>  JtaPersistenceStrategy is taken, otherwise the
> > >> ResourceLocalPersistenceStrategy is taken.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > 2.      We detect, if the involved persistence units use JTA or
> > >>  RESOURCE_LOCAL (which would lead to another question: Would we
> > >> like to  support, that @Transactional mixes both strategies?) and
> > >> decide from  that information  >
> > >>  > 3.      We let the user decide by making one (or both) persistence
> > >>  strategies @Alternatives
> > >>  > What do you think?
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Cheers,
> > >>  > Arne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message