Ok, thanks for the clarification.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> On 3/4/13 10:44 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> So are you saying it's better not to use them in EJBs ?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Or mixing both (EJBs and Managed Bean transactions) is not appropriate ?
>
>
> That's fine if you use them with the MBs.
>
> What happens if we have this ? Is the method propagated as expected ?
>
> @Stateless
> public class MyEJB {
>
> @Inject
> private MyBean myBean;
>
> public void defaultRequiredMethod() {
> myBean.defaultTxMethod();
> }
> }
>
> @Transactional
> public class MyBean {
>
> public void defaultRequiredMethod() {
> myBean.defaultTxMethod();
> }
> }
>
>
> I'm not sure about the last call - if myBean is not a proxy, it's not
> intercepted. Otherwise EJBs continue to work as they did before - it's just
> the incoming transaction now can be started by the container for non-EJB
> components, vs. before they needed to use UserTransaction to do so. And the
> CDI beans (CDI shouldn't be disabled) can now utilize CMT transactions
> following the same rules as the EJBs did all the time.
>
> HTH,
> -marina
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> It's noted in the JTA spec and somewhat in the Interceptors spec already
>> and I planned to add a word of caution on the Tx interceptors to the EJB
>> spec. The problem with these interceptors is that they are CDI interceptors
>> and as such are invoked after the @Interceptors interceptor and may change
>> tx context if they are not the same as the EJB settings.
>>
>> -marina
>>
>>
>> On 3/4/13 7:57 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>
>> I was reading the JTA JIRAs about the Transactional model in Managed
>> Beans (http://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-5). It will be using the new
>> interceptor binding @javax.transaction.Transactional with a TrxType
>> (REQUIRED, REQUIRES_NEW...) :
>>
>> @Inherited
>> @InterceptorBinding
>> @Target({TYPE,METHOD})
>> @Retention(RUNTIME)
>> public @interface *Transactional *{ TxType value() default
>> TxType.REQUIRED }
>>
>> public enum *TxType *{ REQUIRED, REQUIRES_NEW, MANDATORY, SUPPORTS,
>> NOT_SUPPORTED, NEVER }
>>
>> There is nothing about @Transactional in the EJB spec. Why don't we
>> push the new @Transactional model into EJBs ? This way developers would be
>> encouraged to use @Transactional all over the plateform and start
>> forgetting about javax.ejb.TransactionAttribute.
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
>> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>
>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>