Re: [cdi-dev] CDI + transactions query

Marina, Paul: I think most of what we need is already covered by http://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-5. I created http://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-6 to cover the beforeCompletion/afterCompletion ambiguities. Thanks so far. We should move further discussions to the JTA spec list. Jens Am 28.08.12 01:39 schrieb "Marina Vatkina" unter <marina.vatkina(a)oracle.com&gt;: > Jens, > > Jens Schumann wrote: >> Am 25.08.12 00:11 schrieb "Marina Vatkina" unter >> <marina.vatkina(a)oracle.com&gt;: >> >> >>> You can mark a transaction for rollback inside the beforeCompletion >>> callback. >>> >>> BeforCompletion callback is part of the transaction commit process, so >>> it's too late to request a commit. Nested transactions are not required >>> to be supported, but you should be able to suspend/resume an active >>> transaction to run a RequiresNew logic. >>> >>> AfterCompletion callback is called after all transaction processing has >>> been finished. >>> >> >> Thanks for clarification. Just found similar statements in the EJB spec >> (Didn't expect it there though). >> >> Would you agree with my comment in >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-213 >> that CDI should rely on what's already specified for the platform, >> especially for container and bean managed transactions and JTA >> synchronization callbacks? > > It should. But for a BMT transactions, an observer can start a > transaction, if none is in progress. It should then in most cases > complete the transaction (stateful session beans allow transaction > completion at a later time). >> If so we have to discuss wether CMT/BMT >> semantics should be part of the EJB spec and wether the current JTA or >> Java EE spec has to include clarifications like yours above. >> >> I have to admit that I do not follow the current JTA spec works nor do I >> understand the (political) requirements/consequences if the content of >> chapter 13 EJB 3.1 spec gets moved to a better location. > Unfortunately the EJB spec can't just move its transaction support to > another spec (or platform spec for that matter) - it relies on javax.ejb > package, which can't be split into pieces, and we can't just drop the > "old" EJB way for backward compatibility. >> I would hope this >> will already happen while introducing @Transactional/TransactionScope. >> > > It will be added to the JTA spec (Paul sent the pointers). > > -marina >> Jens >> >>