Wow, that I would very much like to see... using for comprehensions
for transactions!
Cheers, Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 May 2009, at 23:54, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.mered...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jonas,
>
> i applaud the effort. i agree with DPP sentiments regarding
> annotations. That said, i feel pretty comfortable that transactions
> fit entirely in a monadic context. Since LINQ demonstrates that
> query fits into monadic context, and there's already at least one
> Scala implementation of LINQ, might i suggest that you come up with
> a monadic presentation first and then map the sugar to that. My
> guess is that the sugar will be informed by the monadic presentation.
>
> To be suggestive... think of a context with a Tx object, TxCtxt, as
> like an Option widget. Then you do stuff inside a transaction via
>
> for ( myTransactedWidget <- TxCtxt if <someCondition> ) yield
> { <someOperationsThatNeedToBeTransacted> }
>
> If you implement flatMap, yada, on TxCtxt you can have fun with
> nested transaction semantics. The point is that this should just
> work with a LINQ-like presentation of query.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrot
> e:
>
> I'll go for closures. Much simpler and less intrusive into Lift.
> The current impl is based on Atomikos and Hibernate, I'll start with
> pushing that in and we can make it pluggable later.
> For example for Hibernate one need to add a line to the hibernate
> config to register the
> org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup class in order to
> make Hibernate aware of our TX manager.
>
> Should I fork the github repo and submit patches or how do you guys
> work?
>
> /Jonas
>
>
> 2009/5/29 Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com>:
> > I'd vote for closures. We use annotations for JPA because we have
> to, but
> > IMHO closures provide a nicer semantic approach because they
> syntactically
> > enclose the block where the action is occurring.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wr
> ote:
> >>
> >> No perf difference. The annotations are turned into the same exact
> >> closures.
> >>
> >> 2009/5/29 Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jonas Bonér
> >>
> >> twitter: @jboner
> >> blog: http://jonasboner.com
> >> work: http://crisp.se
> >> work: http://scalablesolutions.se
> >> code: http://github.com/jboner
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonas Bonér
>
> twitter: @jboner
> blog: http://jonasboner.com
> work: http://crisp.se
> work: http://scalablesolutions.se
> code: http://github.com/jboner
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> L.G. Meredith
> Managing Partner
> Biosimilarity LLC
> 1219 NW 83rd St
> Seattle, WA 98117
>
> +1 206.650.3740
>
> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
