On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'd vote for closures. We use annotations for JPA because we have to, but
> IMHO closures provide a nicer semantic approach because they syntactically
> enclose the block where the action is occurring.


I view annotations as a "second language" within the language.  They have
syntax and semantics that are unique to each annotation and they require
extra tool chain support.  I prefer to express things in the native syntax
of the language, so the closure approach is my vote.


>
>
> Derek
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No perf difference. The annotations are turned into the same exact
>> closures.
>>
>> 2009/5/29 Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu>:
>> >
>> >
>> > Are there any performance implications considering closures vs
>> annotations?
>> > Agreed that closures are more "lift like" however.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Tim
>> >
>> > On 29/05/2009 10:21, "marius d." <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonas Bonér
>>
>> twitter: @jboner
>> blog:    http://jonasboner.com
>> work:   http://crisp.se
>> work:   http://scalablesolutions.se
>> code:   http://github.com/jboner
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>


-- 
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Git some: http://github.com/dpp

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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