+1 with 2/ --> it always looks like magic for users and they don't always
understand.
I must admit that even for me it's odd sometimes.
Jean-Louis
2013/3/7 Jeremy Bauer <jrbauer_at_us.ibm.com>
> Hi Marina,
>
> 1. I think any changes to make the behavior consistent wherever
> setRollbackOnly() is called would cause significant compatibility problems.
> For better or worse, the intent of the spec seems to be to give users the
> flexibility to suppress an exception when rolling back, so there are likely
> applications that are taking advantage of it. Changing the spec to
> require the container to ignore system exceptions that occur after rollback
> may also break applications, specifically those applications that were
> coded to look for those exceptions.
>
> 2. One complaint we've heard from uses is that, in some cases, they don't
> get an exception when a transaction rolls back. If a change is made, I
> think a useful change would to be to always throw some exception when a
> transaction is rolled back, and it would need to be optionally enabled to
> preserve backward compatibility.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net,
> Date: 03/06/2013 02:46 PM
> Subject: [jsr345-experts] EJB_SPEC-90
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Experts,
>
> I'd like to know your opinion on http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-90.
>
> 1. Will it be a backward incompatible change for the EJB container to
> suppress all system exceptions after the transaction has been marked for
> rollback?
>
> 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, do you think the spec should have more
> details on what happens when an exception is thrown after the
> transaction has been marked for rollback?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
>
>
--
Jean-Louis