Do we want to split out transactions from persistence? IMO it's best to keep the two together:
* deltaspike-persistence-api * deltaspike-persistence-impl * deltaspike-persistence-tx-impl I think most people naturally associate persistence with transactions. On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:58, Mark Struberg wrote: > ack, the main question is which parts are depending on each other. Having an > answer to that question will also determine the name. > > jpa-api: con: it might also be used for JTA which is not only for JPA but > also for other TX connectors like JMS. > > jta-api: also not good, as JPA can be used without JTA (resource-local). This > is actually the main use case. > > What about: > * deltaspike-transaction-api > > * deltaspike-transaction-impl (containing resource-local stuff) > * deltaspike-transaction-tx-impl (containing the tx support, replacing the > transaction strategy) > > something along that? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:03 PM >> Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >> @Transactional >> >> hi @ all, >> >> we need an agreement about the module name (and if multiple modules are >> needed). >> it would be useful to do it before v0.3 (which should get released asap). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> 2012/7/10 Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >> >>> Hi Romain, >>> >>> Nothing for the 0.3 release. But we discussed some EntityManager >>> configuration options that we may add later. >>> So for 0.3 I am fine with tx-api and jpa-impl >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arne >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 09:06 >>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >>> @Transactional >>> >>> What will you put in jpa api today? >>> Le 10 juil. 2012 08:43, "Arne Limburg" >> <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> I think at least we will end up with a jpa-api And the tx-impl maybe >>>> will contain the JTA stuff? >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de] >>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 08:39 >>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>> @Transactional >>>> >>>>> for renaming PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>>> +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to >>>>> +deltaspike-tx-module-api and >>>>> creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and >>>>> deltaspike-tx-module-impl >>>> >>>> Not sure, think we need to think a bit harder about what we will >>>> finally end up with. >>>> Will we have a api which has any EE dependency finally? If not it >>>> might be enough to have tx-api + jpa-impl + jta-impl >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" >>>>> <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>> Cc: >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:36 AM >>>>> Subject: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>> @Transactional >>>>> >>>>> What do the others think about doing this already in 0.3? >>>>> +1 from me for renaming PersistenceStrategy to >> TransactionStrategy >>>>> +1 for renaming deltaspike-jpa-module-api to >>>>> +deltaspike-tx-module-api and >>>>> creating empty deltaspike-jpa-module-api and >>>>> deltaspike-tx-module-impl >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Arne >>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] >>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 21:33 >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>> @Transactional >>>>> >>>>> +1 for the last >>>>> >>>>> - Romain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>>>> >>>>>> Ihmo we should rename the api to deltaspike-tx-module-api >> and >>>>>> rename the PersistenceStrategy to TransactionStrategy Also it >> looks >>>>>> strange, the name of the impl should be left as it is. Maybe >> we >>>>>> should add an empty impl to the tx-module and an empty api to >> the JPA >>> module? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arne >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>>> Von: Jason Porter [mailto:lightguard...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 18:54 >>>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] >> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>> @Transactional >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm fine renaming things for v0.3 as we really >> haven't done any >>>>>> JPA >>>>> >>>>>> related stuff yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek < >>>>>> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > @ mark: >>>>>> > that's more or less what we discussed at [1]. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > regards, >>>>>> > gerhard >>>>>> > >>>>>> > [1] http://s.apache.org/3pO >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2012/7/9 Arne Limburg >> <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> > > > >>>>>> For api it's fine, > > and then we have two impl >> modules, JPA and >>> JTA? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Cheers, >>>>>> > > Arne >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>> [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > > Gesendet: Sonntag, >> 8. Juli 2012 >>>>>> 21:37 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; >> Mark Struberg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] >> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>>>> @Transactional > > > > sounds fine >>>> > > - Romain > > > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >>>> > > > maybe we >>>>>> should just rename the jpa module to tx? >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > There is no single import of any >> javax.persistence in > > > >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-api yet. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > LieGrue, >>>>>> > > > strub >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >>> From: Arne Limburg >>>>> <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>>>>> > > > > To: >> "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" >>>>> < >>>>>> > > > deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>>> > > > > Cc: >>>>>> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:39 PM > >>>>> Subject: AW: AW: >>>>>> [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] >>>>> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>> > > > @Transactional >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > Yes, sounds good. >>>>>> > > > > The impl of that module could contain >> the JTA stuff. >>>>> And the >>>>>> > > > > JPA module >>>>>> > > > would >>>>>> > > > > contain the resource local stuff. >> Everybody that does >>>>> not need >>>>>> > > > > the JTA >>>>>> > > > then >>>>>> > > > > could just use the tx-api and the JPA >> api and impl. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > Cheers, >>>>>> > > > > Arne >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>>>> Von: Romain >>>>>> Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > > > >>> Gesendet: >>>>>> Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 20:29 > > > > An: >>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> > > > > Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] >> [DELTASPIKE-175] >>>>> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>> > > > @Transactional >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > i thought the same, JTA shouldn't >> depend on JPA. >>>>>> > > > > @Transactional should >>>>>> > > > be in >>>>>> > > > > a tx module then JPA could use it. >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > wdyt? >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > - Romain >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > 2012/7/8 Arne Limburg >>>>> <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> OK, but I am still not sure where >> to split it. >>>>> While >>>>>> > > > >> implementing this, I got the >> feeling, that the >>>>> @Transactional >>>>>> > > > >> stuff should completely move out of >> the JPA module. >>>>> It feeled >>>>>> > > > >> quite strange that the JTA module >> depends on the >>>>> JPA module... >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> I think, I'll push my stuff >> right after the >>>>> 0.3 release and >>>>>> > > > >> than we can discuss this at the >> code-base. >>>>>> > > > >> Maybe I should put all into the JPA >> module and we >>>>> split it >>>>>> > > > >> after agreeing to a module >> structure? >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> Cheers, >>>>>> > > > >> Arne >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>>>> Von: Romain >>>>>> Manni-Bucau >>>>> [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] >>>>>> > > > >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 8. Juli 2012 >> 17:48 > > > >> An: >>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark >>>>> Struberg >>>>>> > > > >> Betreff: Re: AW: [DISCUSS] >> [DELTASPIKE-175] >>>>> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>> > > > >> @Transactional >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> +1 >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> - Romain >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> 2012/7/8 Mark Struberg >> <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > >> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > +1 for JTA module. >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > LieGrue, >>>>>> > > > >> > strub >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: >>>>> Arne Limburg >>>>>> > > > >> >> <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> > > >>>>> To: >>>>>> > > > >> >> "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" >>>>> < > >>>>>> > > > >> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org> >>>>>> > > > >> > > Cc: >>>>>> > > > >> > > Sent: Sunday, July 8, >> 2012 5:47 PM > >>>>>> Subject: AW: >>>>>> > > > >> [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-175] >> [DELTASPIKE-219] > >>>>>> >>>>>> > > > >> @Transactional >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >>>>>> > > > >> > > I startet implementing it >> that way, but I >>>>> stumbled over >>>>>> > > > >> > > another >>>>>> > > > > issue: >>>>>> > > > >> > > We get a dependency to >> the JTA spec and >>>>> the EJB spec >>>>>> > > > >> that >>>>>> way. >>>>>> > > > >> So >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > our >>>>>> > > > >> > JPA module >>>>>> > > > >> > > only would work with this >> apis in the >>>>> classpath. >>>>>> > > > >> > > Do we accept this or are >> we back on a >>>>> JTA module? >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > Cheers, >>>>>> > > > >> > > Arne >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche >> Nachricht----- > >>>>>> Von: Romain >>>>>> > > > >> Manni-Bucau >> [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Gesendet: >>>>>> > > > >> Donnerstag, 5. Juli >>>>>> > > > >> 2012 15:07 > > An: >>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> > > > >> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] >> [DELTASPIKE-175] >>>>> [DELTASPIKE-219] >>>>>> > > > >> > > @Transactional > > >>>> if >>>>> it works fine with CMT +1 > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > well let's have a >> try, we'll >>>>> fix it if it is not enough >>>>>> > > > > ;) >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > - Romain >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > 2012/7/5 Pete Muir >>>>> <pm...@redhat.com> > > > >> In >>>>>> > > > >> Seam >>>>>> > > > >> 2 >>>>>> > > > >> we: >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > >> * checked if UT was >> available in >>>>> JNDI, and used it if >>>>>> > > > >> it >>>>>> > > > > were >>>>>> > > > >> > >> * checked if there >> was a CMT >>>>> transaction, and used it >>>>>> > > > >> (IIRC >>>>>> > > > > this >>>>>> > > > >> > >> wwas to work around >> abug) > >>>>>>> * otherwise tried to >>>>>> > > > >> use a resource local transaction >> (e.g. >>>>>> > > > > from >>>>>> > > > >> > >> Hibernate) >>>>>> > > > >> > >> * allowed the user >> to override and >>>>> specify one >>>>>> > > > >> strategy >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> >> > >> In Seam 3 >> we did the same. >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > >> So I like option 1. >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > >> On 5 Jul 2012, at >> 10:03, Arne >>>>> Limburg wrote: >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > Hi, >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > yesterday I >> startet working on >>>>> the JTA support for >>>>>> > > > > @Transactional. >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > My current >> approach is to >>>>> implement a >>>>>> > > > > JtaPersistenceStrategy. >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > However that >> leads me to the >>>>> problem: Who decides >>>>>> > > > >> which >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > >> PersistenceStrategy >> should be taken >>>>> and how should this >>>>>> > > > > decision >>>>>> > > > >> > >> be >>>>>> > > > >> > made? >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > I have three >> suggestions: >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > 1. We >> detect, if a >>>>> UserTransaction is available, >>>>>> > > > > if so, the >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >> JtaPersistenceStrategy is taken, >>>>> otherwise the > >> >>>>>> > > > >> ResourceLocalPersistenceStrategy is >> taken. >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > 2. We >> detect, if the >>>>> involved persistence units >>>>>> > > > > use JTA or >>>>>> > > > >> > >> RESOURCE_LOCAL >> (which would lead to >>>>> another question: >>>>>> > > > >> Would >>>>>> > > > > we >>>>>> > > > >> > >> like to support, >> that >>>>> @Transactional mixes both >>>>>> > > > >> strategies?) >>>>>> > > > > and >>>>>> > > > >> > >> decide from that >> information > > > > >> > >> > >>>>>> 3. We let the user decide >>>>> by making one (or both) >>>>>> > > > > persistence >>>>>> > > > >> > >> strategies >> @Alternatives > >>>>>>> > What do you think? >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > Cheers, >>>>>> > > > >> > >> > Arne >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jason Porter >>>>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >>>>>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >>>>>> >>>>>> Software Engineer >>>>>> Open Source Advocate >>>>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception >> Handling >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >>>>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
