[seam-dev] persistence module page drafted

[Dan Allen]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Clint Popetz <cpopetz at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Right. I'm imagining that we can inject the native UserTransaction
> interface
> > or our extended interface, but either way you are getting the same bean
> > instance. Internally we stick the our extended interface to keep the code
> > readable, the user gets a choice.
> > It's not just about wrapping these few status methods and adding the
> enlist
> > method. It's about taring the transaction API to a single interface.
> > Basically, UserTransaction is the interface, the implementation could be
> > non-JTA.
>
>
> This is also important in mock environments.  We use JTA in J2EE
> containers, but not in unit test land (or in development container
> environments like Jetty), and Seam's transaction API allows us to
> easily stub out the same API in the latter case.
>
> Truth be told, it's possible to swap out the JTA impl with a mock in a test
environment even without our enhancement. CDI provides a UserTransaction
bean in a container environment for injection. All beans can be overridden.
Overriding is as simple as providing an @Alternative bean.

That also means we could have an @Alternative for each type of transaction
we are supporting, but I'm still interested in extending the built-in bean
anyway to have an enhanced interface because there are some other elements
to the abstraction than just changing the UserTransaction impl.

-Dan

-- 
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20100414/5631b6c3/attachment-0001.html