+1. I think this is a very good perspective. If we do add more features, it
should be in a manner orthogonal to the current features that are indeed
quite adequate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Robinson [mailto:paul.robinson_at_redhat.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 9:15 AM
> To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342] transactional methods and exceptions
>
> I've been reading the discussion around jsr342
> athttp://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/jsr342-experts/archive/2012-
> 01/message/35.
>
> My personal thoughts are that we really have to provide the same behaviour
as
> that provided by EJB transactional intercepters (D3 S2c A1). As this is a
JEE
> related specification, users are going to find it very strange that the
semantics of
> these, seemingly identical, annotations are different. More dangerously,
there
> are going to be many users who don't know that the semantics around
> exception handling and rollback are different, potentially causing the
behaviour
> of there application to change in unexpected ways.
>
> I think, unless there is something fundamentally broken with the way EJB
> transaction annotations work, we should just provide the same semantics.
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> Paul Robinson
> Web service transactions lead
> paul.robinson_at_redhat.com
>
> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
> Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Brendan Lane (Ireland), Matt Parson
> (USA), Charlie Peters (USA)