Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jta-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?
  • From: Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 20:17:02 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=hcw0d7VxSUamklj/FMxtsDH+2nA3cIJQZsPBNuq/vLI=; b=RLGglajpJlEkZecWIIp3BvH6gGGbfRCCXdxVytIQv1K3hQZ7BHDao6hJwbqhd3V+4CBBB1lZ9YjaJ0tbvtRBdvCQbMjt/BqqZtYeAtuk++Vs3B/kkU0R6OYOJe5u67JJkXMGfv9A9kJbzIsIqihaZRVd6q9CO1U2W88Pgm25sxuQiUujNh5Iyyqv0c7W2dJN0rO8MkPwAxmJLSWZ5Yno8Wp6+a+jklRE9odHmjWrWLGuqq607gvg68eESLnEbdf+Hoh8RJIQC2JNgMztK8IXmOI/1VRkmqP4658SK+I9ndWkGVESsYdbntN/9YhVwAeII8BjzXNB/QgWgWUBVTrRLA==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=T0+9EBB1ocH/Cr6Er94+fYvGrbPbxvXV7wvydfkRtcB/1eh1LpMHlCOwknrp3tPPUQC0zBgV6TFErJRW1czHab+mmykj3jP2gMYVBraXnUaCx1EIIin2ALPbIHPUEwflgHiQRETuftix+qUJpOnPFGvXtiVhl+wREexTDAPYSvBlHFIVKuUn6jSpX0vjzsSb6kyfB/XokNPlTbjHgxQgu6qdbagXD/lhuhbSmpPnOKknirBawSMuo2J3eo0LYaryfe5U1tLxLLEU7MfvrdTqxRjalTbYmniLeIwsHEpce5BqT7FMIK1bnpTZh1VsFF6sLRFcDVjipoj9liPVeKZppw==
  • Delivered-to: jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ActionId=e4c9f0a8-c0d0-456a-be35-d6bef53ae55e; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Name=Internal; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2022-12-06T19:10:55Z; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47;
  • Thread-index: Adj4iCgIimkV5NYmTtCVNp+Kk6nFNwBS0WUAA/TCdYA=
  • Thread-topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jta-dev] @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?

On 2022-11-29, Tom Jenkinson TJ wrote:


TJ> Thank you for the feedback, Arjan.


TJ> Please can I ask if there is any more feedback from others?


I have no additional feedback, but I do have a question: Where is this work item tracked in the issue tracker of record?


Same question applies to the “Definition of active?” thread.


| 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.


From: Tom Jenkinson <tom.jenkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 10:52 AM
To: jta developer discussions <jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jta-dev] @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?




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