Since we currently have not a gain splitting both (people bringing jpa btings jta i think or the opposite *in real life*) we can keep a single module IMO
- Romain Le 30 juil. 2012 13:01, "Pete Muir" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Do we want to split out transactions from persistence? IMO it's best to > keep the two together: > > * deltaspike-persistence-api > * deltaspike-persistence-impl > * deltaspike-persistence-tx-impl > > I think most people naturally associate persistence with transactions. > > On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:58, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
