he he -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <itsme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry... saw the following in the JavaDoc for @TransactionAttribute > > "If the TransactionAttribute annotation is not specified, and the bean uses > container managed transaction demarcation, the semantics of the > REQUIRED transaction > attribute are assumed." > > That answers my follow up question... > > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <itsme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Jean-Louis > > > > So an EJB (e.g. a stateless EJB) NOT annotated with @TransactionAttribute > > at all will still have the container start a transaction when its methods > > are called? > > My understanding was that REQUIRED was the default if annotated, I might > > have got it all wrong though > > > > > > Regards > > LF > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > >> Sorry, NOT_SUPPORTED does not throw an exception, but suspend the > current > >> if any. > >> All detailed here > >> > >> > http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/ejb/TransactionAttributeType.html > >> > >> JLouis > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > As per the spec, the default is REQUIRED. > >> > So if nothing specified on the class and on the method, the container > is > >> > going to start a new transaction before executing the method. > >> > > >> > If you do not want this behavior, use SUPPORTS (if one already started > >> use > >> > it, otherwise, do nothing) or NOT_SUPPORTED (if one started, > execption). > >> > > >> > JLouis > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> > http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Lars-Fredrik Smedberg < > >> itsme...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi! > >> >> > >> >> Just a small question on EJBs and transactions. I assume that there > >> are no > >> >> implicit transactions started when calling a business method on an > EJB > >> >> that > >> >> does not have the @TransactionAttribute annotation? (Assume of course > >> that > >> >> there are no other ongoing transaction) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> LF > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > >> >> > >> >> Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >> >> > >> >> STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >> >> The information contained in this electronic message and any > >> >> attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the > >> >> address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. > If > >> >> you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik > Smedberg > >> >> immediately at itsme...@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this > >> >> message and any attachments. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > > > > Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > > > > STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > > The information contained in this electronic message and any > > attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the > > address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If > > you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > > immediately at itsme...@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this > > message and any attachments. > > > > > > -- > Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > > Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > > STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > The information contained in this electronic message and any > attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the > address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > immediately at itsme...@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this > message and any attachments. >
