openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: OPENJPA-149
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:32:00 GMT
IIUC this is the interface that abstracts the "requiresNew" tx policy  
into a single method on the tm?

Personally I'd like openjpa to define such an interface and use it no  
matter what the environment.  Then perhaps the websphere adapter code  
can call the WAS interface/class using reflection?

I've been having big problems with openjpa in geronimo unless I  
supply both the jta and non-jta datasources.  I have some hope that  
if I can  implement such a "doInNewTx" method I'll be able to solve  
these problems.

david jencks

On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Michael Dick wrote:

> I've been looking at this issue and OPENJPA-159 in my "copious"  
> free time.
> The official supported way to  submit work outside of a transaction in
> WebSphere is to go through a WebSphere proprietary interface  
> (similar to
> what we have in WASManagedRuntime).
> Unfortunately that interface is not published in any maven  
> repository, or
> generally made available in a central location. We were able to get
> permission to use a precompiled jar for our build process, but we  
> can't
> redistribute it (ie publish it to a maven repository). It can be  
> included in
> our source repository though. I believe this approach is used by other
> vendors who use the APIs (ie Spring if I'm not mistaken).
> The net outcome is that we have two options:
> 1. Use the proprietary interfaces in the same manner as we do in
> WASManagedRuntime - use serp to add an interface to one of our  
> classes (not
> an entity) after we've compiled it. When the class is used we'll use
> reflection to invoke the appropriate methods.
> 2. Add the WebSphere jar in our svn repository and then reference  
> it as a
> system dependency (won't be shipped as a dependency) in the maven  
> build .
> The class(es) that use the proprietary interfaces can call methods  
> directly
> and we can avoid the bytecode weaving. The downside is there will  
> be a 4.7 K
> jar file added to svn. It's relatively light weight and it  
> shouldn't be
> changed often (if at all).
> How to people feel about including the WebSphere APIs in this way?  
> On the
> one hand it make the code quite a bit easier to maintain, but on  
> the other
> hand it's a binary in SVN.
> -Mike

View raw message