Re: [jta-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, shoul

[Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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: https://aka.ms/meetedburns

|

| 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> (https://github.com/OmniFish-EE/omni-transact), 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.

 

Thanks,

Tom

 

 

Thanks,

 

Ed

 

 

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

| Calendar Booking: https://aka.ms/meetedburns

|

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

| of your normal working hours.

 

_______________________________________________
jta-dev mailing list
jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev