Trying to add my 2c in-line, too.
>> * The new transactional interceptors are providing a somewhat different
>> functionality than EJB CMT. While the functionality is similar, users
> ...
> [Reza Rahman] This seems very sensible.
[Markus Eisele] This will lead to some kind of confusion. But I can
follow your thoughts here
and I can't proof them completely wrong. Is there any way we can make sure
the users realize and value that difference? Can you influence the EE
tutorial team
to stress this fact in the updated version?
>>
>> * While we're open to considering an annotation that could be applied to
> an
>> exception class to indicate that transactions should not be marked for
> rollback
>...
>
> [Reza Rahman] This is sensible. I would think having a similar annotation in
> the javax.transaction package instead of javax.ejb should do the trick...
>
[Markus Eisele] Plausible to me. I'm not sure if I get Reza here
right. Similar does refer to behavior
not the naming, right? Let's find a different but meaningful name here.
>> * Finally, before adding more flexibility/functionality we'd like to be
> sure that
>> our tradeoff would be the right one to make in view of
>> the further complexity that it would introduce. Note also, that
>> this is something that we could add down the road if we received such
> feedback
>> from developers.
>
> [Reza Rahman] Understood. Personally, it doesn't seem that complicated to
> me. As Paul verbalized, it does worry me that someone coming from an EJB
> background might find it odd to not find an @ApplicationException
> equivalent. I've personally found @ApplicationException useful.
[Markus Eisele] Agree with Reza here. But would also be fine with a
less flexible first version.