<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Pete Muir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@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'm with Emmanuel here.<br>
<br>
All of this is addressable through an Transactions utiltiy class.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Let me ask for two clarifications that will help me understand the counter argument.</div><div><br></div><div>1. If this transaction wrapper extends UserTransaction, is that worse/different than having a utility class? You can always inject the native type, or inject the wrapper for the extra convenient status methods.</div>
<div>2. The transaction wrapper allows us reuse the UserTransaction API to address JTA, resource-local and potentially spring transaction APIs as one. The client then doesn't concern itself with which transaction API is being used under the covers, but everyone "speaks" JTA UserTransaction. How do we do that with just a utility class?</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>