I think that would be really good. But I'd rather not use annotations.
Personally I find closures approach a much better fit here.

withTxRequired {
  ... // do transational stuff

}


Br's,
Marius

On May 29, 11:55 am, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> I have been talking with David Pollak the rest of the lift team about
> adding JTA to Lift. I have implemented that for a product written in
> Scala some time ago. Now some of that code is OSS 
> at:http://github.com/jboner/skalman/tree
>
> We used using two different APIs.
> 1. Annotations (would require Lift to support proxied objects, e.g.
> grab them from a factory):
>
> @TransactionAttribute(REQUIRED)
> def transactionalMethod = { ... }
>
> 2. Call-by-name:
>
> withTxRequired {
>   ... // do transational stuff
>
> }
>
> But I don't know what fits Lift and would like to know how you guys
> would like to have JTA integrated.
> At which level? Which APIs? Etc.
>
> --
> Jonas Bonér
>
> twitter: @jboner
> blog:    http://jonasboner.com
> work:  http://crisp.se
> work:  http://scalablesolutions.se
> code:  http://github.com/jboner
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to