Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Unico Hommes wrote: > > > > What about transactional components? I have a situation > where I use a > > GRL to wrap a session fa�ade type object and rely on > > recycle() being called at the end of the request in order to > > commit/rollback work done. How would I achieve this without > GRL lifecycle? > > > > Good question! Actually, I don't know and I'm wondering if it > is a good idea to rely on this behaviour of the component > container. Hmm, don't know. >
Yes could be, but this use case shows there is a need for this type of lifestyle handling whether GRL interface is the correct way to deal with that or not. > Ok, anyway, we could keep the GRL which can be modelled in > fortress using a thread component (one component per thread), > but skip the RLC which caused a lot of trouble to get it > working and which might still cause us more trouble than it's worth. > Hmm, AFAIU declaring a per-thread lifecycle is not enough, the handler that implements this in Fortress is not aware of recyclable components. What it does is give out a different instances for different threads and the same instance for the same thread that's it. There still needs to be some custom provision for handling Recyclables our request type situation. But I know Berin knows more about this. > Carsten > > >
