I have to object as it makes no sense from the EJB view. We should not
bother the EJB team with things that we are not *all* convinced to make
sense. Or at least until the majority of the EG members voted to do so.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marek Potociar [mailto:marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
> Sent: Montag, 22. Oktober 2012 11:46
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Transactions, EJBs
> and AsyncResponse
>
> Isn't that something that should perhaps make more sense in the
> @Asynchronous annotation javadoc? Do you want me to forward your
> feedback to EJB spec lead?
>
> Marek
>
> On Oct 20, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Jan Algermissen
> <jan.algermissen_at_nordsc.com> wrote:
>
> > In 7.3 the spec points out the use of @Asynchronous.
> >
> > I wonder whether it would ne nice to also point out that the default
> transaction type of @Asynchronous is to run the annotated method in the
> same transaction and that requiring a new transaction for the given
> scenarios is required to really detach the response creation.
> >
> > Might spare some folks some extra debugging work :-)
> >
> > Jan