The half backed read only contract polluting the api is one reason. But anyway, we won't reach any agreement here. Do whatever you guys want to do.
My only suggestion is to create another ResourceAdapter to handle the read only transactions. That way the others users of the nh facility won't notice any side effects or bugs introduced by it. Cheers, Henry Conceição On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:56 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > I am totally biased towards JTA. I think it's simple and very elegant. > And I've stated why people rely on readonly transactions, so there's a > benefit out there that you may disagree or consider low value/useless, > but then we're discussing opinions.. > > I still can't see your point on the implications of doing so. What are > the bad implications of having this support? > > > 2010/10/7 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>: >> :) >> >> I think you're biased by the jta exposure. >> >> If you don't want a commit or a rollback, don't open a freaking >> transaction. Why you want to add the tx overhead to some context if >> you don't want the 2pc? > > > -- > Cheers, > hammett > http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > > -- > 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.
