I can send you a patch with the NUnit test and the Fix but I am having
problems in VS2010 and the formatting you are using in the Castle
project (different that the one we use here internally). Is there
anywhere a VS2010 settings file that I can import?

 

RJB

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roelof Blom
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Different behavior in Trasaction Services in 2.5

 

Please submit a bug report, preferrably with a failing test. A pull
request with a fix would also be fine.

-- Roelof

         

        The ChildTransaction's Context functionality has the same
problem. The implementation in 2.5 differs from the old one (1.0...).

         

        Should I submit a bug report? 

         

        The different implementations are breaking existing code after
the update to 2.5.

         

        Thanks,

         

        RJB

         

        From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
        Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:33 PM
        To: [email protected]
        Subject: Different behavior in Trasaction Services in 2.5

         

        Hi,

         

        After updating Castle.Services.Transaction.dll to 2.5.0.48 I
have found that synchronization objects registered in child transactions
(ChildTransaction instances) are not been invoked. Looking at the new
implementation of this class I noticed a difference with the previous
version of the Castle.Services.Transaction.dll (1.0.3.5953). In the old
version of the ChildTransaction class registering a synchronization
object invokes the registration in the StandardTransaction instance see
the following code:
         

        public override void RegisterSynchronization(ISynchronization
synchronization)

        {

        _parent.RegisterSynchronization(synchronization);

        }
         
        This will go all the way up until a StandardTransaction
instance. The new implementation of ChildTransaction does not override
the RegisterSynchronization  implementation from TransactionBase and
keeps the synchronization objects in a local list. Since the Commit
method in ChildTransaction does nothing, those synchronization instances
are lost.
         
        Is this the intended behavior? I do not think it is correct...
         
        RJB

         

         

        Rogelio J. Baucells * Technical Architect * SunGard * Investran
* 11098 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403, Miami, FL  33161
        Tel +1-305-892-3270 * Fax +1-305-895-0005 *
www.sungard.com/investran

         

        -- 
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group.
        To post to this group, send email to
[email protected].
        To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
        For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

        -- 
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group.
        To post to this group, send email to
[email protected].
        To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
        For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

Reply via email to