right, a lot of JTA works on the 'tx bound to thread' approach and it's a right pain in async I/O thread pooled environments like vert.x That's one of the reasons why sticking a get/put api on the Transaction instance abstraction instead may make more sense, though I'm guessing your SynchronizationRegistry is instance per tx rather than a singleton like the JTA one is, so it may not make much difference which object carries the functionality for your case?
Jonathan. On 25/10/17 16:25, Steve Ebersole wrote: > Also, unless I am mistaken `TransactionSynchronizationRegistry#put` > works on the principle that the "current transaction" is associated with > the current thread. I absolutely want to stay away from that as an > assumption here. It simply does not hold true in the JDBC txn case. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:24 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org > <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> wrote: > > Jonathan, we aren't going to be exposing this or using this > via TransactionSynchronizationRegistry. Your comment about a > "dummy" in the JDBC txn case is exactly why. We already have such > an abstraction : SynchronizationRegistry > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org > <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> wrote: > > Yes that would work for me, but thinking about the > implementation it > implies you'd need to hold on to both a Set and a Map, and > then we'd > be exposed to silly usage like people adding the same > synchronization > twice in two different ways? > > > Does it? Nothing in the SPI requires us to store things in any > specific way. E.g. we can keep just a Map - when we are passed > a KeyableSynchronization we'd use that key, when we are passed a > non-KeyableSynchronization Synchronization we'd generate one > ourselves. > > And we cant stop people from every conceivable "silly usage". > At some point we are professional developers and should be able > to do the non-silly things ;) > > And as far as your "register the thing twice" worry... > rhetorically, what stops them from calling: > > reg.register( "abc", MySync.INSTANCE ) > reg.register( "123", MySync.INSTANCE ) > > Nothing. > > > I'd rather expose a single consistent way: having to make up > an id > doesn't seem too inconvenient considering it's an SPI. > > > Well, again, I don't see how KeyableSynchronization is a > "inconsistent" approach. In fact out of the 2, it is my preferance. > -- Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
