> for renaming PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy +1
> +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to deltaspike-tx-module-api and > creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and deltaspike-tx-module-impl Not sure, think we need to think a bit harder about what we will finally end up with. Will we have a api which has any EE dependency finally? If not it might be enough to have tx-api + jpa-impl + jta-impl LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:36 AM > Subject: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > @Transactional > > What do the others think about doing this already in 0.3? > +1 from me for renaming PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy > +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to deltaspike-tx-module-api and > creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and deltaspike-tx-module-impl > > Cheers, > Arne > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 21:33 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > @Transactional > > +1 for the last > > - Romain > > > 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > >> Ihmo we should rename the api to deltaspike-tx-module-api and rename >> the PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy Also it looks strange, >> the name of the impl should be left as it is. Maybe we should add an >> empty impl to the tx-module and an empty api to the JPA module? >> >> Cheers, >> Arne >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Jason Porter [mailto:[email protected]] >> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 18:54 >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >> @Transactional >> >> I'm fine renaming things for v0.3 as we really haven't done any JPA > >> related stuff yet. >> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > @ mark: >> > that's more or less what we discussed at [1]. >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > [1] http://s.apache.org/3pO >> > >> > >> > >> > 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> > >> > > For api it's fine, >> > > and then we have two impl modules, JPA and JTA? >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Arne >> > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 21:37 >> > > An: [email protected]; Mark Struberg >> > > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > > @Transactional >> > > >> > > sounds fine >> > > >> > > - Romain >> > > >> > > >> > > 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > > >> > > > maybe we should just rename the jpa module to tx? >> > > > >> > > > There is no single import of any javax.persistence in >> > > > deltaspike-jpa-api yet. >> > > > >> > > > LieGrue, >> > > > strub >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > > > From: Arne Limburg > <[email protected]> >> > > > > To: "[email protected]" > < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > Cc: >> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:39 PM >> > > > > Subject: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] > [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > > > @Transactional >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes, sounds good. >> > > > > The impl of that module could contain the JTA stuff. > And the >> > > > > JPA module >> > > > would >> > > > > contain the resource local stuff. Everybody that does > not need >> > > > > the JTA >> > > > then >> > > > > could just use the tx-api and the JPA api and impl. >> > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > Arne >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 20:29 >> > > > > An: [email protected] >> > > > > Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] > [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > > > @Transactional >> > > > > >> > > > > i thought the same, JTA shouldn't depend on JPA. >> > > > > @Transactional should >> > > > be in >> > > > > a tx module then JPA could use it. >> > > > > >> > > > > wdyt? >> > > > > >> > > > > - Romain >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2012/7/8 Arne Limburg > <[email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > >> OK, but I am still not sure where to split it. > While >> > > > >> implementing this, I got the feeling, that the > @Transactional >> > > > >> stuff should completely move out of the JPA module. > It feeled >> > > > >> quite strange that the JTA module depends on the > JPA module... >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I think, I'll push my stuff right after the > 0.3 release and >> > > > >> than we can discuss this at the code-base. >> > > > >> Maybe I should put all into the JPA module and we > split it >> > > > >> after agreeing to a module structure? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Cheers, >> > > > >> Arne >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > > > >> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau > [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 17:48 >> > > > >> An: [email protected]; Mark > Struberg >> > > > >> Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] > [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > > > >> @Transactional >> > > > >> >> > > > >> +1 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - Romain >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > +1 for JTA module. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > LieGrue, >> > > > >> > strub >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > Arne Limburg >> > > > >> <[email protected]> > > > To: >> > > > >> "[email protected]" > < > >> > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > >> > > Cc: >> > > > >> > > Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:47 PM > >> Subject: AW: >> > > > >> [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > >> >> > > > >> @Transactional >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > I startet implementing it that way, but I > stumbled over >> > > > >> > > another >> > > > > issue: >> > > > >> > > We get a dependency to the JTA spec and > the EJB spec >> > > > >> that >> way. >> > > > >> So >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > our >> > > > >> > JPA module >> > > > >> > > only would work with this apis in the > classpath. >> > > > >> > > Do we accept this or are we back on a > JTA module? >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > > >> > > Arne >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: Romain >> > > > >> Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Gesendet: >> > > > >> Donnerstag, 5. Juli >> > > > >> 2012 15:07 > > An: > [email protected] >> > > > >> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] > [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > > > >> > > @Transactional > > > > if > it works fine with CMT +1 > >> > > > >> > > > well let's have a try, we'll > fix it if it is not enough >> > > > > ;) >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > - Romain >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > 2012/7/5 Pete Muir > <[email protected]> > > > >> In >> > > > >> Seam >> > > > >> 2 >> > > > >> we: >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> * checked if UT was available in > JNDI, and used it if >> > > > >> it >> > > > > were >> > > > >> > >> * checked if there was a CMT > transaction, and used it >> > > > >> (IIRC >> > > > > this >> > > > >> > >> wwas to work around abug) > >>> * otherwise tried to >> > > > >> use a resource local transaction (e.g. >> > > > > from >> > > > >> > >> Hibernate) >> > > > >> > >> * allowed the user to override and > specify one >> > > > >> strategy >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> In Seam 3 we did the same. >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> So I like option 1. >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> On 5 Jul 2012, at 10:03, Arne > Limburg wrote: >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> > 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 >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jason Porter >> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >> >> Software Engineer >> Open Source Advocate >> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling >> >> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >> >
