Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jta-dev] Fwd: @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?

I can't see my response on the archive ( so I am forwarding it again.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 15:52
Subject: Re: [jta-dev] @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?
To: jta developer discussions <jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 00:22, Edward Burns via jta-dev <jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:50 PM wrote:


TJ> Please can you share a bit more detail on what kind of changes you

TJ> are proposing to the Transactions specification


On 2022-08-16 Arjan Tijms wrote:


AT> The Transactions specification provides a CDI build-in bean to

AT> make the UserTransaction type injectable by CDI.

TJ> and whether you see those changes as necessary (like bug fixes) or

TJ> enhancements


AT> Depending on how you look at it, it's a bug fix, but an

AT> architectural one. CDI is the core spec on which other

AT> specifications depend. Other specifications should know about CDI,

AT> CDI should not know about those other specifications (as much as

AT> is reasonably possible).

TJ> and why?


AT> To make the dependency graph, and who-owns-what more

AT> consistent. Any enhancement to how UserTransaction is injected or

AT> any clarification thereof, should be done by the Jakarta

AT> Transactions specification, and not by the CDI specification. CDI

AT> has no business describing that. This is equivalent to CDI having

AT> no business describing how say FacesContext from Jakarta Faces is

AT> injected (which instance, from where, at what moment during the

AT> Faces lifecycle, etc).


AT> Practically, an implementation of Jakarta Transactions that

AT> already uses CDI to manage several of its artefacts, would have to

AT> jump through some hoops since CDI itself takes possession of its

AT> UserTransaction artefact. I'm running somewhat into this with the

AT> Jakarta Transactions implementation Transact

AT> (, but the proposal

AT> is beyond that.


I am entering into this discussion one whole calendar quarter late. I

would like to know the resolution of Arjan's original question. Was

any decision taken on this matter?

Hi Ed,

The community has not yet reached a resolution for this discussion.








| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095

| Calendar Booking:


| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside

| of your normal working hours.


jta-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top