In that case what would you like to see happen when say
Transaction.isActive() is called but the UserTransaction or
TransactionManager cannot be found? Or when they report that the status
is UNKOWN? Currently we throw exceptions in both of those cases which
is do not think is uber-useful.
In the case of isActive() specifically, UNKNOWN is probably ok to
interpret as false. But I don't think that makes sense in the case of
wasCommitted() or wasRolledBack().
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 11:20 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
Getting the underlying tx state is more useful to me.
On 28 sept. 2010, at 05:49, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Currently there is a big discrepancy between the documentation for some
> of the methods on org.hibernate.Transaction and the actual code.
> Specifically the methods isActive(), wasRolledBack() and wasCommitted()
> explicitly state that they only account for the "local state" of the
> transaction object, not the underlying transaction.
> However, the code explicitly checks the current status of JTA
> transactions to responded to these methods.
> We need to fix one or the other. Personally I do not follow the use of
> these methods too much, so asking for feedback on which way is more
> Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org>
> hibernate-dev mailing list
Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org>