ack, the main question is which parts are depending on each other. Having an answer to that question will also determine the name.
jpa-api: con: it might also be used for JTA which is not only for JPA but also for other TX connectors like JMS. jta-api: also not good, as JPA can be used without JTA (resource-local). This is actually the main use case. What about: * deltaspike-transaction-api * deltaspike-transaction-impl (containing resource-local stuff) * deltaspike-transaction-tx-impl (containing the tx support, replacing the transaction strategy) something along that? LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] > @Transactional > > hi @ all, > > we need an agreement about the module name (and if multiple modules are > needed). > it would be useful to do it before v0.3 (which should get released asap). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/7/10 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > >> Hi Romain, >> >> Nothing for the 0.3 release. But we discussed some EntityManager >> configuration options that we may add later. >> So for 0.3 I am fine with tx-api and jpa-impl >> >> Cheers, >> Arne >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 09:06 >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >> @Transactional >> >> What will you put in jpa api today? >> Le 10 juil. 2012 08:43, "Arne Limburg" > <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> > I think at least we will end up with a jpa-api And the tx-impl maybe >> > will contain the JTA stuff? >> > >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > Von: Mark Struberg [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 08:39 >> > An: [email protected] >> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >> > @Transactional >> > >> > > 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 >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
