1) and 2) agreed - CommitAfter is ok for the trivial applications (still don't like it on the interface)
3) I like reuse and familiarity, but I'm not sure that adopting EJB lingo will increase or decrease potential for confusion? 4) yes, fully features set of something JTA yes please! In an ideal world I'd write some annotations to go in my DAOs that implement bitronix/XA somehow behind the scenes. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo To: Tapestry development Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Transactions and AfterCommit On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:39:11 -0300, Taha Siddiqi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone Hi! > There are two @CommitAfters and both work differently from each other. This is a problem Here's my suggestion: 1) Leave the @CommitAfter implementations the way they are now for backward-compatibility reasons. 2) Mark them as deprecated. 3) Use EJB's @TransactionAttribute annotation instead of tapestry-hibernate and tapestry-jpa defining different annotations. 4) Implement the different transaction attribute types described in http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B32110_01/web.1013/b28221/servtran002.htm. Question: use JTA? I don't know. -- Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
