<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Reza Rahman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com">reza_rahman@lycos.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Dan,<br>
<br>
Personally, I think the most elegant solution in terms of Java EE is<br>
simply to standardize "promotable" transactions. Specifically, JTA could<br>
be modified to use local transactions by default and only promote<br>
transactions to distributed mode as the need arises. The Microsoft guys<br>
have had promotable transactions for ages, I am not sure why we don't<br>
have it in Java EE too. This would make the "lightweight" vs<br>
"heavyweight" debate moot and keep things simple/consistent from a<br>
developer's perspective while most of the systems-level issues are dealt<br>
by the container where these things belong instead of a steady leak as a<br>
development concern.</blockquote><div><br>I'd like to read more about it. One way or another, we have to figure out why we feel the need to introduce "non-Java EE" persistence and transaction support in Seam 3. The technical reason is because you can't have an EJB in a servlet container environment. If we could have a portable transactional managed bean in a servlet container, then we'd be good. Otherwise, we have to layer Seam 3 on top again.<br>
</div></div><br>-Dan<br clear="all"><br>-- <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>