Hi Paul, If it's really backwards compatible, I like it. Upload it to patches (make sure it's patched against latest CVS). If we accept it we'll apply it. If not, we'll throw it away.
+1 Aslak > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul > Cantrell > Sent: 14. juni 2002 00:06 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Xdoclet-user] A clarifying extension for ejb:transaction > > > I made a mod to the ejb:transaction tag that I thought others > might be interested in, so I'm describing it here for discussion. > > I've always been really bothered by the EJB terminology for > transaction types. Quick, what's the difference between > "Required" and "Mandatory"? "NotSupported" and "Never"? OK, I > know the answers, and so do you, probably -- but being used to > it doesn't make the terminology any less horrid. And bad > terminology can really thwart the high-level discussion and > analysis the EJBs are supposed to make easier. > > So, I added support for a clearer alternative. With the patch, > instead of this: > > @ejb:transaction > ������type="Supports" > > ...you can specify the rules in a much more comprehensible way, > specifying the action to take depending on whether a transaction > is present or absent in the current context: > > ��@ejb:transaction > ������present="use" > ������absent="ignore" > > It's backward-compatible -- either way works -- you can specify > either "type" or the "present" / "absent" pair (but not both) in > your ejb:transaction tag. The allowable values for the "present" > attribute are: ignore, use, create, and error; "absent" is the > same, except it doesn't allow "use" because it wouldn't have any > meaning. > > The modified tag handler will translate the present/absent pair > into the appropriate EJB transaction type, or give an error if > you choose a combination not allowed by the spec. The full > translation table is as follows: > > absent / present => type > ---------------------------------- > ignore / ignore => NotSupported > ignore / use => Supports > create / use => Required > create / create => RequiresNew > error / use => Mandatory > ignore / error => Never > > Now I think this is cool, and am pleased with its effect on my > code's readability. Questions: Is this a patch others would > like? Do people have suggestions for improvement? Might we > consider adding this as a standard feature of ejbdoclet? > > If there is interest on this list, I'll send my code out. > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=dntextlink _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
