Hi Thomas, would be great to get it in 0.6, any idea if it would be possible? I should be able to help once decided and if needed. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-12 12:13 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > While it works with JTA it is ok for me, I think it should be > compatible with our @Transactional and EE 7 one. I think reusing > @Transactional is important in declaration (on method) so maybe the > way to go. > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-12 11:40 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: >> +1 for 2/ as well. >> That is right from an end user experience point of view. >> Also right to reuse and put in common some parts of JPA and Data module >> Closer to Java EE 7 @Transactional approach >> >> JLouis >> >> >> >> 2014-02-12 11:20 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hug <thomas....@gmail.com>: >> >>> Not sure where we stopped in the discussion but AFAIR we had two approaches >>> here: >>> >>> 1) An automatic internal tx handling if one is needed by the query, >>> probably similar to what the JPA module does in the >>> EnvironmentAwareTransactionStrategy. Could eventually be controlled by an >>> attribute on @Repository defaulting to active. >>> >>> 2) Integration with @Transactional of the JPA module. For this we'd also >>> have to look at: >>> - Aligning EntityManager resolution between the two modules. That could >>> include moving the EntityManagerResolver into the JPA module API and >>> eventually removing the current qualifier-based resolution. That one would >>> need some more thoughts to get out something consistent. >>> - Eventually exposing the resolved EM @TransactionScoped so the repository >>> can easily access it. >>> - Deal with PartialBeans not picking up interceptors - AFAIR this was >>> reported to be an issue on some Weld versions? >>> >>> +1 on 2) - makes for me much more sense from a user perspective. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Louis
