Hi Linda, all,
please find my comments below.
Am 8 Nov 2011 um 17:01 hat Linda DeMichiel geschrieben:
> I've uploaded a new specification draft to the project Documents area
> (http://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/downloads)
>
> This draft includes changes in support of unsynchronized persistence
> contexts along the lines of the proposal submitted two months ago.
>
> These changes affect Chapters 3 and 7 and section 10.4.1. There are a
> number of open issues flagged in the text, including some pertaining
> to ways in which we might extend this functionality.
3.1.1 1st paragraph 1st sentence, p. 76 :
There seems a verb to be missing in the when clause.
3.1.1 3rd paragraph, p. 76 & 3.8.7 4th paragraph after the bullets,
p. 130 :
Actually, I am missing the basic statement here that, when being
joined to a transaction, the resulting entities are managed. Too
clear to say ?
3.3.1, p. 85 & 10.4.1, p. 389 & others :
To my understanding, the synchronisation type of an application-
managed persistence context is determined by the circumstances of its
creation; only the one of a container-managed persistence context may
be set explicitly. If that has been intended it might be stated more
clearly, if not likewise.
3.8.1, p. 110 & 3.8.2, p. 118 javadocs on
TransactionRequiredException for getResultList and getSingleResult :
Would prefer "lock mode other than NONE" like in 3.1.1.
3.3.3 Note, p. 86 & 7.6.1 5th paragraph, p. 327 :
The former states : "Because a transaction-scoped persistence
context´s lifetime is scoped to a transaction regardless of whether
it is joined to that transaction, the container closes the
persistence context upon transaction rollback."
The latter : "If a persistence context of type
SynchronizationType.UNSYNCHRONIZED has not been joined to the current
JTA transaction, rollback of the JTA transaction will have no effect
upon the persistence context."
Am I the only one to find this a bit confusing ?
> If the group is supportive of this direction, I would like to submit a version
> of this draft to the JCP for purposes of Early Draft Review so that we can get
> feedback from the broader community. Please let me know if you think that
> anything stands in the way of that.
With respect to 7.4., p. 323, addNamedQuery, I would like to remind
of the thread synchronisation issues brought up by Evan and would
prefer to at least see them mentioned as open issue before going EDR.
Thanks again for your great work, Linda !
Best regards
Rainer