[wildfly-dev] (transaction enlistment for ACID but none for BASE...) update on WildFly NoSQL prototype integration...

[Emmanuel Bernard]

On Mon 2016-07-18 13:53, Scott Marlow wrote:
> > 
> > The choice of ignoring those calls, is made against the alternative of
> > throwing an exception.  The reason for ignoring the neo4j transactional
> > calls, is to be more compatible with existing ne04j code that may be
> > using the neo4j transactional code, with the goal that the JTA
> > transaction controls the underlying ne04j transaction.  Neo4j
> > transactional code also runs the statements against the neo4j
> > transaction class, instead of the neo4j session class.
> > 
> 
> In a JTA transaction, instead of ignoring calls to
> org.neo4j.driver.v1.Transaction.failure(), we could call setRollbackOnly()
> on the JTA transaction.  So, the existing neo4j code can influence a JTA
> rollback.  IMO, this would improve our compatibility with existing neo4j.

Yes that is an improvement but I don't think it would help in the
example I showed in my previous email.
The big question is do we want to offer something that works sometimes,
or do we want to offer something that does not work but is explicit
about it?