On 10/28/2011 01:57 PM, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
> The Java EE platform requires that the
> TransactionSynchronizationRegistry be made
> available through JNDI (or by injection). Doesn't this work? See section
> EE.5.11.
Good point, the TransactionSynchronizationRegistry could be looked up
via JNDI.
I think passing the TransactionManager JNDI name (or instance), to the
persistence provider would still be helpful, to eliminate the
application server specific code for obtaining the TransactionManager.
>
> -Linda
>
> On 10/28/2011 6:33 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
>> Recently, I have been spending a lot of time on the JBoss AS JPA
>> container and its integration with persistence
>> providers using the JPA SPIs. I think we have some low hanging fruit
>> to be had, in standardizing how the persistence
>> providers obtain a JTA transaction manager.
>>
>> I've looked at (mostly four) different persistence providers and how
>> they have application server vendor (often version)
>> specific integration for obtaining either the JTA TransactionManager
>> or TransactionSynchronizationRegistry.
>>
>> To improve how persistence providers integrate with containers, I
>> think we should introduce properties for the container
>> to pass a TM/TSR reference to the provider. This will help reduce the
>> amount of application server vendor specific code,
>> needed by the different persistence providers.
>>
>> Perhaps the properties could be:
>>
>> javax.persistence.transactionmanager - JNDI name of JTA Transaction
>> Manager or instance of JTA Transaction Manager
>>
>> javax.persistence.transactionsynchronization - JNDI name of
>> TransactionSynchronizationRegistry or instance of
>> TransactionSynchronizationRegistry.
>>
>> The idea being that providers should expect either a TM/TSR to be
>> passed directly or to use a JNDI lookup name (so
>> providers could work with EE servers that don't have a single TSR/TM
>> to pass in but perhaps have several instances to
>> choose from).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Scott