deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] @Transactional
Date Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:03:37 GMT
hi @ all,

we need an agreement about the module name (and if multiple modules are
needed).
it would be useful to do it before v0.3 (which should get released asap).

regards,
gerhard



2012/7/10 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>

> Hi Romain,
>
> Nothing for the 0.3 release. But we discussed some EntityManager
> configuration options that we may add later.
> So for 0.3 I am fine with tx-api and jpa-impl
>
> Cheers,
> Arne
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 09:06
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> @Transactional
>
> What will you put in jpa api today?
> Le 10 juil. 2012 08:43, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de> a
> écrit :
>
> > I think at least we will end up with a jpa-api And the tx-impl maybe
> > will contain the JTA stuff?
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 08:39
> > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > @Transactional
> >
> > > for renaming PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > > +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to
> > > +deltaspike-tx-module-api and
> > > creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and
> > > deltaspike-tx-module-impl
> >
> > Not sure, think we need to think a bit harder about what we will
> > finally end up with.
> > Will we have a api which has any EE dependency finally? If not it
> > might be enough to have tx-api + jpa-impl + jta-impl
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>
> > > To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:36 AM
> > > Subject: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > > @Transactional
> > >
> > > What do the others think about doing this already in 0.3?
> > > +1 from me for renaming PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy
> > > +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to
> > > +deltaspike-tx-module-api and
> > > creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and
> > > deltaspike-tx-module-impl
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arne
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 21:33
> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > > @Transactional
> > >
> > > +1 for the last
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>
> > >
> > >>  Ihmo we should rename the api to deltaspike-tx-module-api and
> > >> rename the PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy Also it looks
> > >> strange, the name of the impl should be left as it is. Maybe we
> > >> should add an empty impl to the tx-module and an empty api to the JPA
> module?
> > >>
> > >>  Cheers,
> > >>  Arne
> > >>
> > >>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>  Von: Jason Porter [mailto:lightguard.jp@gmail.com]
> > >>  Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 18:54
> > >>  An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>  Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > >> @Transactional
> > >>
> > >>  I'm fine renaming things for v0.3 as we really haven't done any
> > >> JPA
> > >
> > >>  related stuff yet.
> > >>
> > >>  On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > >> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  > @ mark:
> > >>  > that's more or less what we discussed at [1].
> > >>  >
> > >>  > regards,
> > >>  > gerhard
> > >>  >
> > >>  > [1] http://s.apache.org/3pO
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>  >
 > >
> > >> For api it's fine,  > > and then we have two impl modules, JPA and
> JTA?
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Cheers,
> > >>  > > Arne
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----  > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >> [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]  > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012
> > >> 21:37  > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg
> > >> >
> > >> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > >> > > @Transactional  > >  > > sounds fine  > > 
> > - Romain  > >  >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>  > > 
> > > maybe we
> > >> should just rename the jpa module to tx?
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > There is no single import of any javax.persistence in 
> > >
> > >> deltaspike-jpa-api yet.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > 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 8:39 PM  > > >
> Subject: AW: AW:
> > >> [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175]
> > > [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > >>  > > > @Transactional
> > >>  > > > >
> > >>  > > > > Yes, sounds good.
> > >>  > > > > The impl of that module could contain the JTA stuff.
> > > And the
> > >>  > > > > JPA module
> > >>  > > > would
> > >>  > > > > contain the resource local stuff. Everybody that does
> > > not need
> > >>  > > > > the JTA
> > >>  > > > then
> > >>  > > > > could just use the tx-api and the JPA api and impl.
> > >>  > > > >
> > >>  > > > > Cheers,
> > >>  > > > > Arne
> > >>  > > > >
> > >>  > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----  > > >
> Von: Romain
> > >> Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]  > > > > Gesendet:
> > >> Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 20:29  > > > > An:
> > >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>  > > > > Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175]
> > > [DELTASPIKE-219]
> > >>  > > > @Transactional
> > >>  > > > >
> > >>  > > > > 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
> > >>  > > > >>
> > >>  > > > >>  -----Ursprüngliche 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
> > >>  > > > >>  > >
> > >>  > > > >>  > > -----Ursprüngliche 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
> > >>  > > > >>  > >>
> > >>  > > > >>  > >>
> > >>  > > > >>  > >
> > >>  > > > >>  >
> > >>  > > > >>
> > >>  > > > >
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  --
> > >>  Jason Porter
> > >>  http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
> > >>  http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
> > >>
> > >>  Software Engineer
> > >>  Open Source Advocate
> > >>  Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
> > >>
> > >>  PGP key id: 926CCFF5
> > >>  PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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