Guess you mean to be backward compatible with EE5 here, or why would CDI
@Inject not work?
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:26:58 +0100
> Von: Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com>
> An: jsr338-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net
> Betreff: [jsr338-experts] Re: improve how persistence providers learn of
> the JTA transaction manager to be used...
>
> You can inject TransactionSynchronizationRegistry with
> @Resource. It works perfectly on all major appservers. Lookup works as
> well...
> On 28.10.2011, at 19:57, 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.
> >
> > -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
>
>
>
--
NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone