[cdi-dev] CDI have any plan to process Transaction?

Mark Struberg struberg at yahoo.de
Tue May 1 10:51:55 EDT 2012 

For me the most important fact is that all the api interfaces and annotations get moved to an own spec/package.

Currently for implementing that stuff you need:

 *) JTA
 *) EJB
 *) JPA

That's a bit much for a lean project ;)


LieGrue,
strub


----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: Hantsy Bai <hantsy at gmail.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI have any plan to process Transaction?
> 
> Sure :-)
> 
> Today:
> 
> * EJBs are transactional by default, IOW an EJB implicitly has 
> @TransactionAttribute(REQUIRED) on it
> * Managed beans are not transactional, and, without an extension like 
> Deltaspike, cannot participate in transitions. IOW @TransactionAttribute cannot 
> be applied to managed beans.
> 
> And with the proposal:
> 
> * Managed beans are not transactional by default, but can be made transactional 
> by adding @Transactional
> * By default @Transacational has a type of REQUIRED, but other modes can be 
> specified (proposal has details)
> * @TransactionAttribute is still used to control EJB transactions (we tried to 
> bridge the two, but we can't see a sane way, read the EE ML archives for 
> details)
> 
> IOW @Transactional brings declarative transactions to managed beans, it 
> doesn't add new features.
> 
> HTH
> 
> On 1 May 2012, at 11:09, Hantsy Bai wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  can you ask in another way, what is new in the @Transacational,  compare to 
> the existing @TransactionAttirbute ?
>>  but maybe it is not related to CDI now.
>> 
>>  Hantsy
>> 
>>  On 5/1/2012 17:53, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>  How do you mean?
>>> 
>>>  On 1 May 2012, at 10:49, Hantsy Bai wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  I do not understand why introduce @Transational in JEE7 but it  
> still
>>>>  align with JTA.
>>>> 
>>>>  On 5/1/2012 17:41, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>>  Yes, that's possibly a better idea still :-D
>>>>> 
>>>>>  On 30 Apr 2012, at 21:01, Dan Allen wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  True, it could be a matter of packaging. We could include 
> the necessary JAR files as part of the Servlet support in the respective 
> distributions. In a sense, they would be "blessed" extensions, which 
> is all any user really cares about (how else do they know what's in 
> weld-servlet.jar, for example).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -Dan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 15:59, Mark 
> Struberg<struberg at yahoo.de>   wrote:
>>>>>>  Over in DeltaSpike we are currently discussing the jpa 
> module. Plans are to implement it there as portable extension. I see no need why 
> we need to duplicate the effort by implementing it in both Weld and OWB ;)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  The big benefit of this approach is that this will also run 
> on any CDI-1.0 container!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  LieGrue,
>>>>>>  strub
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>>>>  From: Dan Allen<dan.j.allen at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>  To: Pete Muir<pmuir at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>  Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>>  Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI have any plan to process 
> Transaction?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  I molded this into a mini blog. Pete, if you are 
> interested, feel free to post this as it will likely solve a wider 
> misunderstanding from going around:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  "A standard, universal @Transactional annotation 
> is coming in Java EE 7. However, there are some important things to keep in 
> mind:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  - @Transactional *is* being developed as a revision to 
> the JTA spec (as an MR)
>>>>>>>  - @Transactional *is not* being developed by the CDI 
> EG, nor will it be in the CDI spec
>>>>>>>  - Feedback on @Transactional should be sent to the Java 
> EE platform EG *not* to the CDI EG. The platform EG is conducting the revision 
> to the JTA spec.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Java EE does not recognize a Servlet container as a 
> compliant environment and therefore this feature will not be available there by 
> default (mainly due to the absence of JTA in this environemnt).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  However, to bridge the divide, Weld and OpenWebBeans 
> will both likely offer support for @Transactional in a Servlet environment since 
> we acknowledge that it *is* important, and is an environment preferred by many 
> developers (but we still strongly urge you to migrate to the web 
> profile!!)."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  -Dan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 04:55, Pete 
> Muir<pmuir at redhat.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Just to be 100% clear, as there is a lot of confusion 
> around this topic.
>>>>>>>>  * @Transactional *IS NOT* being developed by the 
> CDI EG nor will it be in the CDI spec
>>>>>>>>  * @Transactional *IS* being developed as a revision 
> to the JTA spec (as a MR IIRC, but that was not my/our decision to make)
>>>>>>>>  * Feedback on @Trasnactional should be sent to the 
> Java EE platform EG NOT to the CDI EG. The platform EG is conducting the 
> revision to the JTA spec.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  HTH!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  On 30 Apr 2012, at 09:19, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  On 29 Apr 2012, at 23:12, Dan Allen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  Am I correct in saying that the annotation 
> will control JTA
>>>>>>>>>  Yes, this will be an amendment to the JTA spec 
> AIUI. So back where it belongs!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  and work in either of the two profiles (web 
> and full)?
>>>>>>>>>  We haven't discussed this, but I'm 
> assuming both. I will raise this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  Btw, Java EE does not recognize a Servlet 
> container as a compliant environment and therefore this feature will not be 
> available there (without special support for it).
>>>>>>>>>  Correct. Main obstacle is actually a lack of 
> JTA there, rather than the declarative control… But I think OWB and Weld will 
> both offer something here as we all regard it as important!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  I agree with this stance since the web 
> profile should be recognized as the low end environment. Otherwise there is not 
> enough core services to provide a dependable and portable programming model. If 
> you (general audience) want to use a Servlet container, you aren't using 
> Java EE and will have to supplement with addons like CDI extensions or Spring.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  -Dan
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>>>>>  Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
>>>>>>>>>>  Android device, an open platform for
>>>>>>>>>>  carriers, developers and consumers.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  On Apr 27, 2012 4:54 AM, "Pete 
> Muir"<pmuir at redhat.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  Java EE 7 will include @Transactional. This 
> will be provided by the Java EE platform, rather than CDI specifically. It will 
> be a CDI interceptor, and so enabled as other CDI interceptors are.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  On 24 Apr 2012, at 09:10, Hantsy Bai wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  I have read some content about the spec 
> 1.1, but I want to know if there
>>>>>>>>>>>  is a plan to provide a new transaction 
> annotation...for EBJ or none EJB
>>>>>>>>>>>  proramming.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  For example, provide a @Transactional 
> annotation like Seam2 or Spring
>>>>>>>>>>>  3.1...and make it work in Servlet 
> container(none JTA transation, jdbc
>>>>>>>>>>>  only) or full profile container such as 
> JBoss, Glassfish(JTA transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>  by default) seamlessly.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Automatically detect the Transaction 
> will be used, or configure in
>>>>>>>>>>>  beans.xml file.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>  Hantsy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>>>> 
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>>>>> 
> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>>> 
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>> 
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Dan AllenPrincipal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author 
> of Seam in Action
>>>>>>>  Registered Linux User #231597
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>>>>>>>  http://mojavelinux.com
>>>>>>>  http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -- 
>>>>>>  Dan Allen
>>>>>>  Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in 
> Action
>>>>>>  Registered Linux User #231597
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>>>>>>  http://mojavelinux.com
>>>>>>  http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list