I'm fine either way. I'm sure Pete and Gerhard have the background in the decision to split the modules in Seam 3. The main reason people didn't want to use the Persistence stuff in Seam 3 is because it really only offered the Seam Managed EntityManager. If people weren't using that but wanted to use transactions (say for REST endpoints) they could simply use the transaction stuff and standard JPA.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Gerhard Petracek < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- 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
