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 <mailto: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>