based on the new information provided by pete: +1 to keep it as it is (at least for v0.3). (we could think about separated packages before we release v1).
regards, gerhard 2012/7/30 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > I was talking with Gerhard on IRC, and in Seam 3, we split persistence and > transactions for the reason that some people want to use transactions > without persistence. > > I personally don't think it's necessary, and we should stick with one > module. > > On 30 Jul 2012, at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
