<div dir="ltr">I don't have a big problem with it, but I don't see the need to do it. Is it not just a convenience thing to be able to get it directly from the transaction object rather than having to get the separate transaction manager object?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 July 2016 at 16:59, Bill Burke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I want to simplify KeycloakTransaction interface a bit and remove the<br>
getRolbackOnly, setRollbackOnly, and isActive and only have them within<br>
KeycloakTransationManager. I may have to refactor existing components<br>
to handle this. See any issues? All this is the continuous process of<br>
simplying our SPIs to make them easier to implement.<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
keycloak-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>