[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jta-dev] Definition of active?
|
I probably should have asked something more like "Would this change, or needing to adapt to it be difficult within your implementation?" and "If so, and if you are able to say, please can you share your thoughts on what might prevent adapting to this change".
I suspect that if such a test takes the spec literally then every "compliant" implementation would fail!
A question to the committers on the project or any vendors who already ship a compliant version of Jakarta Transactions. Would this change cause a problem for you?
Is it possible to consider someone proposing CTS test(s) to validate this?
Seems like it, yes. This will help with those of us looking for state diagrams: at least now there will be a more easily grasped verbal connection between the possible states of the system and the Status class. Thanks.
So if we replace those two usages of "active" with "active (or marked for rollback)" in the specification and similarly for the three usages of active in the javadoc text for TransactionSynchronizationRegistry (not forgetting to changing the throws text to: "Throws: IllegalStateException - a transaction is neither active nor marked for rollback") then will that be sufficient?
There is only one usage of active in the JTA sense of the word in main specification (in the section you referenced):
"The jakarta.transaction.TransactionScoped annotation provides the ability to specify a standard Jakarta Context Dependency Injection scope to define bean instances whose lifecycle is scoped to the currently active Jakarta Transactions transaction."
All of the other usages of the term are referring to CDI contexts [1] which are different from the JTA transaction context.
I see one more use of "active" that could use clarification:
"The object with this annotation will be associated with the current active Jakarta Transactions transaction when the object is used." If I'm "in" a method marked @Transactional, and there is a "Jakarta Transactions transaction" that has been marked for rollback, and I manipulate the TransactionSynchronizationRegistry from within this method—isn't this legal? If so, then "active" here must also mean "active or marked for rollback" I think.
Best,
Laird
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
--
Michael Musgrove
JBoss, by Red HatRegistered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
--
Michael Musgrove
JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev
