On 15 Apr 2010, at 08:15, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> On 14 avr. 2010, at 20:21, Dan Allen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Pete Muir <
pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm with Emmanuel here.
>>
>> All of this is addressable through an Transactions utiltiy class.
>>
>> Let me ask for two clarifications that will help me understand the counter argument.
>>
>> 1. If this transaction wrapper extends UserTransaction, is that worse/different than having a utility class? You can always inject the native type, or inject the wrapper for the extra convenient status methods.
>> 2. The transaction wrapper allows us reuse the UserTransaction API to address JTA, resource-local and potentially spring transaction APIs as one. The client then doesn't concern itself with which transaction API is being used under the covers, but everyone "speaks" JTA UserTransaction. How do we do that with just a utility class?
>
> So your proposal was only describing what already exists here?
>
http://docs.jboss.org/seam/2.2.1.CR1/api/org/jboss/seam/transaction/UserTransaction.html
>
> If yes then, that's fine. But frankly the wiki wording sounds like you are on your way to design a brand new API.
>
> So if the proposal is:
> - create an extension of javax.transaction.UserTransaction to provide convenience methods
> - use this interface as a wrapper around all the transaction apis out there (ie basically using javax.transaction.UserTransaction as the tx gateway for everyone - unit test up to JTA)
> - provide implementations of these wrappers
>
> then that's cool but isn't it already what Seam 2 does?