Jonathan, we aren't going to be exposing this or using this via TransactionSynchronizationRegistry. Your comment about a "dummy" in the JDBC txn case is exactly why. We already have such an abstraction : SynchronizationRegistry
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > Yes that would work for me, but thinking about the implementation it >> implies you'd need to hold on to both a Set and a Map, and then we'd >> be exposed to silly usage like people adding the same synchronization >> twice in two different ways? >> > > Does it? Nothing in the SPI requires us to store things in any specific > way. E.g. we can keep just a Map - when we are passed > a KeyableSynchronization we'd use that key, when we are passed a > non-KeyableSynchronization Synchronization we'd generate one ourselves. > > And we cant stop people from every conceivable "silly usage". At some > point we are professional developers and should be able to do the non-silly > things ;) > > And as far as your "register the thing twice" worry... rhetorically, what > stops them from calling: > > reg.register( "abc", MySync.INSTANCE ) > reg.register( "123", MySync.INSTANCE ) > > Nothing. > > > I'd rather expose a single consistent way: having to make up an id >> doesn't seem too inconvenient considering it's an SPI. >> > > Well, again, I don't see how KeyableSynchronization is a "inconsistent" > approach. In fact out of the 2, it is my preferance. > > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev