Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jta-dev] @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?
  • From: Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 00:22:06 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microsoft.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=microsoft.com; dkim=pass header.d=microsoft.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; 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=IluAhpJb6ZXz0WXUFWosnF8TA2qepYhaR0lZ0AuJ5pI=; b=M9mW1x1ixyIarp6/Izzx4bPJDlICqSqmgI/04BNPNeEk1285BieBo/D0T3BYzNUBJoeZLJ2bm40ni1GCUUJZBhoxlCpN3cV46Sud31zQDN8i0GdL25rjdL8jgPmpKGr0SFWVorAh83PsnKrgXQV3Oicy46Vo6Y5jDoz7Dm4vYNEbE/JHQJdQg3iWaB/QwX+kcQOOVLWLmTbHibhbCllMvQy3TcW77Ek9sEH99QTJqc+akWfF6EM8sUdOYdlJkGyhCy0GC25cfLxmHz6pUM+9O9vMrTsRhbSzKulYT/eKeuJE11xBGt5S0LWkj+e1M2UkauFPAXNspZ1xYBeiO4OfeQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=TBnE0ya1738RIJooU3EG2ktXalBj2X0o+7Y17rKY2HeyMG3TDWqR3SYXg/Ymv3VmIPXR5ZNsIKyXpBK2cGNhC+lgK0GVRU+U+mVUHMKjpXqf9pUqGEdpweiC2VVHzMPRt+inT8018hKtZPct/6JhOtqlsNWGNhMzhyUMm4xAwwQkzyhYBn5RhhL+XxJJbPR/jRfXNwXalShCHyol1rfQboC2y+3TsWEtQ2LhyDM/VIbIwHB/Qs0gibYekbpBxqanyf64SSRBAze/dVxyBbQa+Y4XTj84VRlMNVnfooG64rk4zNDhr4mbC1SpcTyBUrDYON3qZMklMH1gOtKzoFBN/g==
  • Delivered-to: jta-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/private/jta-dev/>
  • List-help: <mailto:jta-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
  • List-subscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jta-dev>, <mailto:jta-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/options/jta-dev>, <mailto:jta-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ActionId=d3ed3168-e48f-4061-9274-8f092cc229f0; 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=2022-11-15T00:20:25Z; MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47;
  • Thread-index: Adj4iCgIimkV5NYmTtCVNp+Kk6nFNw==
  • Thread-topic: Re: [jta-dev] @Inject UserTransaction in CDI spec, should be in Transactions?

 

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?

 

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.

 

Back to the top