Stephane Epardaud commented on JBTM-2280:
Suggestimate suggests that this is similar to JBTM-2225, which appears to be true, no?
alternative to JNDI
Project: JBoss Transaction Manager
Issue Type: Feature Request
Reporter: Gavin King
Assignee: Tom Jenkinson
So far four (4) different people have tried and failed to get JBoss Transactions working
in a Ceylon environment (i.e. JBoss Modules, essentially). The basic problem is that the
TM has a totally spurious dependence on JNDI as the source of its transactional resources.
Since JCA is neither defined nor available outside a Java EE environment, this forces
anyone trying to use the TM outside of the application server to write their own nasty
code depending on some really internal-looking APIs that basically sets up a JNDI-bound
proxied datasource where both the TM and the application can find it. In principle this is
sorta-straightforward (except for the internal-looking APIs). However, it means that most
of the code in `ceylon.transaction` is actually about connection management and setting up
Sadly it turns out that, in the context of JBoss Modules, even just getting a JNDI server
on the right classloader has proved to be a task so difficult that four reasonably
competent developers including myself and other folks who are much better programmers than
me have failed at it. I'm sure it's remotely _possible_, and I'm sure that if
I weren't using JBoss Modules it would be quite easy. But I'm also sure that it
simply shouldn't be necessary. JNDI has nothing to do with transactions and is a
distraction here. JNDI is this totally stringly-typed rubbish thing designed in the
Clinton era as an abstraction of LDAP by folks who had never heard that Java has static
types. Yeah, sure, it continues its zombie existence at the heart of the EE standards,
even after we remembered that Java has static types in EE 6, but it just has no place in
modern APIs. Other libraries like Hibernate, Spring, etc always offer alternative
approaches with no dependence to JNDI.
IMO, what the TM _should_ do is offer an API that lets me hand it an instance of
`XADataSource` (it doesn't care where that comes from) and hands my back an instance
of `DataSource` that I can use to obtain transaction-bound connections. There is no
reason, AFAICT, to involve JNDI in this at all.
XADataSource xads = youJustDontNeedToCare();
DataSource ds = narayana.registerDataSource(xads);
Or something like that. Of course I'm sure I'm missing some subtleties here.