[hibernate-dev] Work on HHH-3110

[Steve Ebersole]

One thing I'd ask for future is that you stick to hibernate style as it
makes it easier to see *real* changes.  For example, you are using
space-expansion in place of tabs, etc.

This discussion has come up before and I had been thinking of another
approach to address this, however, my approach is more disruptive.
Basically, right now we have this
org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup contract which has
morphed beyond a simple TM lookup.  And wrt this discussion it is the
point at which we make the decision to support only JTA-compliant TMs
because org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup defines a
getUserTransactionName() method which returns the JNDI namespace where
the UserTransaction can be located.  If this were instead changed to
actually return the UserTransaction instance I think it is much cleaner
in the long run.  Conceptually, I think the argument to make the change
here is much stronger since it aligns with the actual roles these things
fulfill.  Of course, because it is disruptive, such a change would need
to wait until until at least 3.4.  

In the meantime, I'll go ahead and apply this patch (sans the tab
cleanup and some javadoc changes).

-  

Steve Ebersole
Project Lead
http://hibernate.org
steve at hibernate.org

Principal Software Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://jboss.com
http://redhat.com
steve.ebersole at jboss.com
steve.ebersole at redhat.com


On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 12:12 -0400, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> Steve, Chris,
> 
> What do you think?  does this look good?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Les Hazlewood <les at hazlewood.com> wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I finally was able to attack this today and created an issue:
> > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-3358
> >
> > The patch was created based on an SVN checkout of trunk and attached
> > to the issue.  Comments about the change and exactly what I did are
> > detailed as well.
> >
> > The best thing about the fix is that I realized I didn't need to add
> > any parent abstract classes or even subclasses.  I was even able to
> > consolidate a common JNDI lookup that was spread out (perhaps
> > unnecessarily) across two classes into one class in one method.
> >
> > The change was pretty clean and only touched two files, but still
> > retains backward compatibility.
> >
> > Please let me know what you think!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Les
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Les Hazlewood <les at hazlewood.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Steve!
> >>
> >> Great to hear from you again :)
> >>
> >>> Not sure why you find it so interesting considering that that JTA spec
> >>> itself *requires* binding into JNDI :)  This is true both in the older
> >>> 1.0.1B as well as the latest 1.1 specs.  Thus I do not believe
> >>> that org.hibernate.transaction.JTATransaction is the correct place to
> >>> be adding support for not acquiring these resources from JNDI.
> >>
> >> My frustration lies in the JTA spec itself, requiring JNDI due to
> >> remnants from the EJB 2.1 era.  Which is why I consider my approach to
> >> be a feature request as opposed to a bug - its a 'nice to have' when
> >> using a JTA TM that doesn't require JNDI.
> >>
> >> And I agree that JTATransaction _should_ be using the JNDI lookup - my
> >> intention was never to change that, ensuring 100% backwards
> >> compatibility.  My intention was that the JTATransaction was a minimal
> >> subclass of a parent abstract class.  That abstract class would
> >> delegate to children classes how do do the lookup, and in the
> >> JTATransaction case, it would do it from JNDI, just as things occur
> >> today.
> >>
> >>> However, I have no issue with adding support for these psuedo-JTA TMs.
> >>> Its just a matter of semantics and being consistent with terminology.
> >>> So, the basic thing we are trying to describe is support for interacting
> >>> with "distributed transaction" systems.  So, I'd prefer that the base
> >>> class in question here be called DistributedTransaction, of which
> >>> JTATransaction would be a subclass with the same behavior as it has
> >>> today (some delegated to its new super).  And from there we can begin to
> >>> build the support for Atomikos and the other TP services not conforming
> >>> to the JNDI aspect of the JTA spec.
> >>
> >> Perfect, this is exactly my thinking as well.  And I much prefer your
> >> superclass name ;)   I'll post to this list again when I have my patch
> >> attached to the issue so you guys can see the end result.
> >>
> >> Thanks again,
> >>
> >> Les
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev