Are there any performance implications considering closures vs annotations?
Agreed that closures are more "lift like" however.
Cheers, Tim
On 29/05/2009 10:21, "marius d." <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that would be really good. But I'd rather not use annotations.
> Personally I find closures approach a much better fit here.
>
> withTxRequired {
> ... // do transational stuff
>
> }
>
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On May 29, 11:55 am, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys.
>>
>> I have been talking with David Pollak the rest of the lift team about
>> adding JTA to Lift. I have implemented that for a product written in
>> Scala some time ago. Now some of that code is OSS
>> at:http://github.com/jboner/skalman/tree
>>
>> We used using two different APIs.
>> 1. Annotations (would require Lift to support proxied objects, e.g.
>> grab them from a factory):
>>
>> @TransactionAttribute(REQUIRED)
>> def transactionalMethod = { ... }
>>
>> 2. Call-by-name:
>>
>> withTxRequired {
>> ... // do transational stuff
>>
>> }
>>
>> But I don't know what fits Lift and would like to know how you guys
>> would like to have JTA integrated.
>> At which level? Which APIs? Etc.
>>
>> --
>> Jonas Bonér
>>
>> twitter: @jboner
>> blog: http://jonasboner.com
>> work: http://crisp.se
>> work: http://scalablesolutions.se
>> code: http://github.com/jboner
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
