[hibernate-dev] Work on HHH-3110

[Les Hazlewood]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
> One thing I'd ask for future is that you stick to hibernate style as it
> makes it easier to see *real* changes.  For example, you are using
> space-expansion in place of tabs, etc.

Ah, yes, I'll definitely do that - my apologies.  I'm assuming there
is a style guide that I can use to ensure IntelliJ is set up
appropriately?

>
> This discussion has come up before and I had been thinking of another
> approach to address this, however, my approach is more disruptive.
> Basically, right now we have this
> org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup contract which has
> morphed beyond a simple TM lookup.  And wrt this discussion it is the
> point at which we make the decision to support only JTA-compliant TMs
> because org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup defines a
> getUserTransactionName() method which returns the JNDI namespace where
> the UserTransaction can be located.  If this were instead changed to
> actually return the UserTransaction instance I think it is much cleaner
> in the long run.  Conceptually, I think the argument to make the change
> here is much stronger since it aligns with the actual roles these things
> fulfill.  Of course, because it is disruptive, such a change would need
> to wait until until at least 3.4.
>
> In the meantime, I'll go ahead and apply this patch (sans the tab
> cleanup and some javadoc changes).

Very cool - thanks so much.  In which release will it be available (so
I can tell the Atomikos guys)?

Cheers,

Les

> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 12:12 -0400, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>> Steve, Chris,
>>
>> What do you think?  does this look good?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Les Hazlewood <les at hazlewood.com> wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > I finally was able to attack this today and created an issue:
>> > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-3358
>> >
>> > The patch was created based on an SVN checkout of trunk and attached
>> > to the issue.  Comments about the change and exactly what I did are
>> > detailed as well.
>> >
>> > The best thing about the fix is that I realized I didn't need to add
>> > any parent abstract classes or even subclasses.  I was even able to
>> > consolidate a common JNDI lookup that was spread out (perhaps
>> > unnecessarily) across two classes into one class in one method.
>> >
>> > The change was pretty clean and only touched two files, but still
>> > retains backward compatibility.
>> >
>> > Please let me know what you think!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Les
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Les Hazlewood <les at hazlewood.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Steve!
>> >>
>> >> Great to hear from you again :)
>> >>
>> >>> Not sure why you find it so interesting considering that that JTA spec
>> >>> itself *requires* binding into JNDI :)  This is true both in the older
>> >>> 1.0.1B as well as the latest 1.1 specs.  Thus I do not believe
>> >>> that org.hibernate.transaction.JTATransaction is the correct place to
>> >>> be adding support for not acquiring these resources from JNDI.
>> >>
>> >> My frustration lies in the JTA spec itself, requiring JNDI due to
>> >> remnants from the EJB 2.1 era.  Which is why I consider my approach to
>> >> be a feature request as opposed to a bug - its a 'nice to have' when
>> >> using a JTA TM that doesn't require JNDI.
>> >>
>> >> And I agree that JTATransaction _should_ be using the JNDI lookup - my
>> >> intention was never to change that, ensuring 100% backwards
>> >> compatibility.  My intention was that the JTATransaction was a minimal
>> >> subclass of a parent abstract class.  That abstract class would
>> >> delegate to children classes how do do the lookup, and in the
>> >> JTATransaction case, it would do it from JNDI, just as things occur
>> >> today.
>> >>
>> >>> However, I have no issue with adding support for these psuedo-JTA TMs.
>> >>> Its just a matter of semantics and being consistent with terminology.
>> >>> So, the basic thing we are trying to describe is support for interacting
>> >>> with "distributed transaction" systems.  So, I'd prefer that the base
>> >>> class in question here be called DistributedTransaction, of which
>> >>> JTATransaction would be a subclass with the same behavior as it has
>> >>> today (some delegated to its new super).  And from there we can begin to
>> >>> build the support for Atomikos and the other TP services not conforming
>> >>> to the JNDI aspect of the JTA spec.
>> >>
>> >> Perfect, this is exactly my thinking as well.  And I much prefer your
>> >> superclass name ;)   I'll post to this list again when I have my patch
>> >> attached to the issue so you guys can see the end result.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again,
>> >>
>> >> Les
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>
>