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:[email protected]] Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 18:54 An: [email protected] 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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > For api it's fine, > > and then we have two impl modules, JPA and JTA? > > > > Cheers, > > Arne > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 21:37 > > An: [email protected]; Mark Struberg > > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > @Transactional > > > > sounds fine > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > To: "[email protected]" < > > > [email protected]> > > > > 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:[email protected]] > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 20:29 > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >> 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:[email protected]] > > > >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 17:48 > > > >> An: [email protected]; Mark Struberg > > > >> Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > > >> @Transactional > > > >> > > > >> +1 > > > >> > > > >> - Romain > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > >> > > > >> > +1 for JTA module. > > > >> > > > > >> > LieGrue, > > > >> > strub > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Arne Limburg > > > >> <[email protected]> > > To: > > > >> "[email protected]" < > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > 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:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: > > > >> Donnerstag, 5. Juli > > > >> 2012 15:07 > > An: [email protected] > > > >> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > >> 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
