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?


On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 20:17, Edward Burns via jta-dev <jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

 


Reports in the issue tracker are welcome.

I suppose it's possible that the discussion for this has not reached the point where someone has definitively arrived at the conclusion it should be considered required and so has not added the issue to the tracker (yet)?

 

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

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

Back to the top