On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Right, but the last time I checked, getting JTA transactions to work
in
Tomcat or Jetty was a nightmare. And even when they loaded properly, they
didn't actually work (rollbacks failed).
What transaction manager are you talking about here? JBoss
Transactions? If that's the case it seems like we should fix JBoss
Transactions, not invent something new.
So basically, what I'm trying to
resolve is what exactly we are providing by emulating Java EE transactions
and persistence. I'm just confused where Java EE falls apart that we feel we
need to still provide this.
Java EE doesn't fall apart. But we have users who refuse to use it,
for whatever dumb reason. And they want to use CDI.
Isn't this the whole idea of EJB lite? And so I
ask, why can't we have Java EE lite which supports @TransactionAttribute
without having something that is an EJB, yet still stay inside of Java EE?
So now I'm really confused. You think that a new "local" transaction
management feature would be a solution. You think that EJB Lite would
be a solution. But you don't think that the sweet spot in between of
just JTA is a solution. I'm having a hard time justifying that.
EJB Lite is a wole lot more than just JTA.
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org