<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 20:15, George Gastaldi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gegastaldi@gmail.com">gegastaldi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Nice, I agree that it is the right way to go. I was almost suggesting separating that on a separate module also.</div><div><br></div><div>However it must be considered that JTA would not always be used (when running on tomcat for example). How would this module handle these scenarios ? Would it depend on persistence module itself ?<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The Seam transaction API is an abstraction over JTA. It provides the same interface, but can accommodate a different providers underneath.</div><div><br></div><div>For instance, you should be able to adapt it to any single resource transaction (recognizing that you lose multiple resource enlistment) (similar to what spring does: <a href="http://www.infoq.com/articles/spring-modules-jcr">http://www.infoq.com/articles/spring-modules-jcr</a>). The module could even go a step further and provide simplified transaction configuration for JTA in a standalone environment. I think there is a lot of interesting avenues to explore, which is why having it in a separate module makes a ton of sense. The floor is open for discussion.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div>Dan Allen</div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><div><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br></div><br>