sage -
From: Lenny Primak
To: Tapestry development
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Transactions and AfterCommit
John,
have you really, actually looked at the state of JEE these days?
It's trivial to set up, trivial to develop in, and IMHO, easier to
Bitronix or similar over JEE and code
> my transactions manually in the implementing classes, unless more demand for
> EJB arises.
>
> John
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Taha Hafeez Siddiqi
> To: Tapestry development
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:1
ase! 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
ubject: Re: Transactions and AfterCommit
I have used spring and JEE in the past and I don't think every project needs
them. The transaction support comes with a lot-n-lots of dependencies (at least
at that time it was the case :)) and some people don't like it.
All we need is a suppor
I have used spring and JEE in the past and I don't think every project needs
them. The transaction support comes with a lot-n-lots of dependencies (at least
at that time it was the case :)) and some people don't like it.
All we need is a support for @Transactional->Required /readonly. I think if
I would leave everything as is now.
Tapestry should not try to implement or re-implement full transaction support.
This has already been done with JEE or spring. If a user wants this support,
they should just use what already exists out there.
On Aug 24, 2013, at 3:18 PM, "Thiago H de Paula F
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:39:11 -0300, Taha Siddiqi
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.
tapestry-mailing-list-archives.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Transactions-and-AfterCommit-td5722996.html
>
> If you look at this solution, I also ask myself why there is no direct
> support. I can not believe that this is not needed in any way. Why should I
> go for spring or fuddle
