users@jta-spec.java.net

[jta-spec users] Re: shall we crack on? :) ...

From: Jonathan Halliday <jonathan.halliday_at_redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:47:04 +0100

Well I'm still keen on JTA_SPEC-2 personally, but as far as these ones
go I think the approaches we can consider depend on how we feel about
introducing dependencies between JTA and other specs. resource-ref is
not JTA and clearly the CDI annotations aren't either.

Historically it's not been necessary to consume other JavaEE specs/APIs
to use JTA, though it's almost inevitably used with JCA in practice. My
preference is to stick with that approach and avoid mandating use of
other JavaEE specs to achieve full JTA functionality. That doesn't
necessarily preclude allowing it, but e.g. @SomeCDIThing should be an
ease of use option alongside e.g. Transaction.someFunction(), not
instead of it.

At the risk of scope creep I think it's worth trying to keep any
XAResource ordering mechanism general enough that it can apply to
Synchronization too. Nesting to form tree structures for ordering is a
problematic kludge at present, particularly w.r.t. error handling
semantics. Interposed Synchronization was a limited stab at the
ordering problem that had only partial success IMO. Frankly I'd like to
see it deprecated in favour of something more general.

Jonathan.


On 12/05/16 17:18, Paul Parkinson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So in our list of items we have these two priorities:
>
> - https://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-4 "support explicit ordering of commits for XAResources enlisted in a transaction” .
> There has been consensus for a while now that this is the top priority issue and we’d been discussing the best way to make it configurable (eg IBM WebSphere uses resource-ref config, Redhat WildFly uses XAResource interface extension, etc.), therefore, I think the next step here is to resolve that aspect.
>
> - https://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-13 "Add timeout attribute to the javax.transaction.Transactional annotation” .
> This is related to a topic that we’ve discussed here since before this annotation which is standardizing the ability to pass transaction properties (such as timeout) at an individual transaction level. Again here we have options such as a new UT/TM.begin API that takes either the transaction timeout or properties or both, the attribute of the CDI Transactional annotation as mentioned in this entry, etc.
>
> Thoughts?...
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>

-- 
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander