I skimmed through the document.
I think the transaction API is a bad idea.
It's a major issue that everyone and his dog reinvents a Tx API where JTA is almost
perfect.
I agree with the non-intuitiveness of using getStatus() (esp. pre Enums). But that's
nothing a small helper class can fix.
On 13 avr. 2010, at 19:06, Dan Allen wrote:
I have put together an initial draft of the persistence module page
[1]. I've outlined the major issues that this module needs to address along with some
rough design notes. The next step is to identify what features to tackle first by
sketching out a roadmap (alpha1, alpha2, etc with bullets next to them). I'll take the
first stab at it.
- If you are a current Seam committer interested in helping with this module, please add
your name to the table and feel free to revise or add to the design notes.
- If you are not a Seam committer, you can start by helping with the design notes and we
can work you up to committer status as you demonstrate commitment and expertise.
Like the security module, the persistence module is very important because it fills a gap
that still exists in Java EE (transactions for non-EJB managed beans). Developers are
mostly likely going to need this module to write an app, primarily if they are trying to
avoid using EJBs. I still believe that we should advocate EJB 3.1, though, despite working
on this module. We could consider it a half-way house for people who have been burned by
EJB in the past :)
-Dan
[1
http://seamframework.org/Seam3/PersistenceModule
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev