Re: [weld-dev] persistence and transactions outside Java EE

I'm not necessarily saying we need a new type. But in your application, you could logically think of classes which don't use transactions and classes which do as different, and both distinct from classes which can passivate and cluster (which are EJBs). Perhaps it as simple as saying that a managed bean with @Transactional at the class level can inject a persistence context and its methods support transactions by default. -Dan On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > I don't see why would want to introduce a new kind of thing. Just let > managed beans have declarative txns. > > Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > I was talking to someone about this topic post-Devoxx. I came up with an > idea that may be worth considering. Perhaps the Java EE platform can > recognize another class of bean that has persistence and transaction > capabilities, but not the rest of EJB. Here's my proposed breakdown, in > terms of airplane seat classes (I was on an airplane at the time). > > First class - EJB session bean > Business class - local transactional bean > Coach - Simple managed bean > > The main differientiator of a "business class bean" from an EJB is that it > would have the option to use local transactions, just like an > application-managed JPA persistence unit. It would also not support any HA > concerns. But it would be a drop in replacement for so-called "lightweight" > transaction beans that Spring offers. > > Then, we wouldn't need to do anything special in Weld / Seam 3. All we > would need is to be able to support these types of beans in a servlet > container, the same way that Weld supports those environments. But it would > be a standard part of Java EE (6 MR1 or 7). > > If we feel like we need to support this use case in Seam, then clearly > there is still something missing in Java EE. > > -Dan > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> I think we should try and follow the Java EE models as closely as >> possible for this stuff. We should simply try and make the Java EE >> code work outside EE 6. >> >> e.g. >> >> (1) use a resource declaration with @PersistenceContext(unitName=....) >> to define a managed persistence context >> (2) use JBoss Transactions to manage transactions in a servlet engine >> - so instead of having a special tx manager for JDBC, it is just JTA >> >> Or is the 10meg download for JBoss Transactions just no good? >> >> -- >> Gavin King >> gavin.king(a)gmail.com >> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin >> http://hibernate.org >> http://seamframework.org >> _______________________________________________ >> weld-dev mailing list >> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev > > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev -- 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