One of the main issues I had with Seam 2.x was the (lack of) tx propagation
support options (specifically REQUIRES_NEW and NOT_SUPPORTED) when using
@Transactional when compared with EJB3 tx support and Spring tx support.
Refer to this thread:
AFAIK this is not fixed and/or released. Will this be fixed and released
with Seam3?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Btw, this is exactly why most people use Seam 2. They don't want
to deal
with EJB. They can just annotate with @Name and inject a Seam-managed
persistence context. The transactions are hooked into whatever they want:
local, JTA or Spring. It's "the hell with EJB" approach.
I'm just saying perhaps we can find a way to cater to this approach in Java
EE so we don't lose those people to the platform.
-Dan
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It's somewhat related....in terms of Resin, we actually don't have such
>> a thing as a traditional EJB container - we have "aspects" such as
>> transactions delivered via meta-data (e.g. @TransactionAttribute), the
>> aspects are bound to an underlying implementation (e.g. transaction
>> manager) and can be used in any component model including managed beans
>> or EJB. The "EJB Lite" distinction is tenuous since you don't
really
>> need to use the EJB component model per se.
>
>
> To be honest, I'm kind of confused myself now. Circling back to my initial
> argument, the two options we provide in Java EE at this moment are:
>
> - a non-transactional "simple" managed bean or,
> - an EJB session bean (which is, by default, transactional, and more)
>
> So if the developer wants a transactional bean without using an EJB
> container, they have to use some sort of framework (or portable CDI
> extension) to get it. To me, that is where Java EE falls apart. There needs
> to be some middle of the road that the developer can get a transactional
> bean out of the box OR we just need to say, if you want a transactional
> bean, you have to use EJB w/ at least EJB lite, period.
>
> Why isn't the "simple" transactional bean something that Java EE can
> provide. Clearly a use case is being ignored.
>
> -Dan
>
> p.s. The "simple" transactional bean would be a bean w/
> @TransactionAttribute and somehow @PersistenceContext would be supported on
> the bean.
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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