What do you mean with this? To my understanding of JTA there is at most one Transaction active in one thread. So either a transaction is active when the @Transactional interceptor is invoked then we should not start a new one, nor commit the existing, but set it to rollback-only on an exception. Or there is no transaction active then we should begin it and commit it afterwards. All this can be done with a UserTransaction and we would still join the CMT if available.
Cheers, Arne -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 12:02 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] @Transactional So you forget the usage of @Transactional on CMT? - Romain 2012/7/5 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > This stuff is all supported when we use UserTransaction, > > When we go the route and implement features for JCA we definitely > would create an own module. > But my current focus is the integration of @Transactional and JTA > EntityManagers. > There imho the UserTransaction is a good interface to use and we could > even leave it there when we start implementing a transaction-module. > > Cheers, > Arne > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 11:43 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > @Transactional > > what about resource adapters? > > - Romain > > > 2012/7/5 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > > > Ok, you are talking about javax.transaction.TransactionManager and > > javax.transaction.Transaction? > > The problem with this is, that the way to receive them is very > > container-dependent and we would have to maintain very much > > container-specific code. > > If we decide to go that way we definitely would need a separate JTA > module. > > But the only benefit I see is that we could suspend and resume on > > transactions... > > Is that worth the effort? > > That would be something that a user could implement in a > > container-specific way, if he needs it... > > > > Cheers, > > Arne > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 11:31 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > @Transactional > > > > right but i wonder about the integration with a container managed > > transactions. UserTransaction is pretty close to resource local from > > a tx management point of view. > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2012/7/5 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > > > > > That would come out of the box, when JTA UserTransaction is used > > > or am I wrong? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Arne > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 11:20 > > > An: [email protected] > > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > > @Transactional > > > > > > Why not allowing to use > > > javax.transaction.TransactionSynchronizationRegistry ? > > > > > > - Romain > > > > > > > > > 2012/7/5 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I would not create an own module for JTA, since it will be just > > > > some lines of code after extracting an > > > > AbstractPersistenceStrategy from the ResourceLocalPersistenceStrategy. > > > > > > > > Or do we have other JTA stuff that would go into that module? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arne > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > Von: Mark Struberg [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 11:07 > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > > > @Transactional > > > > > > > > The original intent was to move all the jta stuff in an own > > > > module which would then automatically enable the JtaPersistenceStrategy. > > > > > > > > > > > > But we actually have a 3rd option: > > > > > > > > Create an AutodetectPersitenceStrategy and make this the default. > > > > It could lookup the one to take via configuration. That way a > > > > user could override according to his intention. > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "[email protected]" > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 11:03 AM > > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > > > > > @Transactional > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > yesterday I startet working on the JTA support for @Transactional. > > > > > My current approach is to implement a JtaPersistenceStrategy. > > > > > However that leads me to the problem: Who decides which > > > > > PersistenceStrategy should be taken and how should this > > > > > decision be > > > made? > > > > > I have three suggestions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We detect, if a UserTransaction is available, if so, the > > > > > JtaPersistenceStrategy is taken, otherwise the > > > > > ResourceLocalPersistenceStrategy is taken. > > > > > > > > > > 2. We detect, if the involved persistence units use JTA or > > > > > RESOURCE_LOCAL (which would lead to another question: Would we > > > > > like to support, that @Transactional mixes both strategies?) > > > > > and decide from that information > > > > > > > > > > 3. We let the user decide by making one (or both) persistence > > > > > strategies @Alternatives What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Arne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
