Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

http://apache-tapestry-mailing-list-archives.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Transactions-and-AfterCommit-td5722996.html If you look at this solution, I also ask myself why there is no direct support. I can not believe that this is not needed in any way. Why should I go for spring or fuddle with my code to

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

By the way one might rename it from isNested to isNestedOrNoTransaction. Same behavior more precise in the naming 2013/8/23 Martin Kersten > >>> I disagree. @CommitAfter never claimed to implement nested > transactions, so, if someone expects it with @CommitAfter, they're wrong, > not @CommitAf

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

>>> I disagree. @CommitAfter never claimed to implement nested transactions, so, if someone expects it with @CommitAfter, they're wrong, not @CommitAfter. I agree that its documentation should be more explicit. <<< We had this conversation in 2008 already, if I remember correctly. Same problem, sa

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Martin Kersten wrote: > @Dimitry > But using this annotation would introduce a good chance that later in your > project you introduce bugs this way. So I would consider @CommitAfter to be > a harmful feature. The problem with this transaction behavior it introduce

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:45:27 -0300, Martin Kersten wrote: @Dimitry But using this annotation would introduce a good chance that later in your project you introduce bugs this way. So I would consider @CommitAfter to be a harmful feature. The problem with this transaction behavior it intr

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

@Dimitry But using this annotation would introduce a good chance that later in your project you introduce bugs this way. So I would consider @CommitAfter to be a harmful feature. The problem with this transaction behavior it introduces bugs that might happen in so rare circumstances that you always

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

TAP5-2159 2013/8/23 Taha Hafeez Siddiqi > Hi Martin > > You are right. Please file a jira. I will look into it this weekend. > > regards > Taha > > On 23-Aug-2013, at 12:41 PM, Martin Kersten > wrote: > > > I review some code and I ran into the

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

Thanks for taking care. Please add a post here if you find something out. I wait for using the mentioned version to manage my transactions. 2013/8/23 Martin Kersten > TAP5-2159 > > > 2013/8/23 Taha Hafeez Siddiqi > >> Hi Martin >> >> You are ri

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

I have to correct myself, you won't get nested transactions with @CommitAfter, because its implementation checks if another transaction is active -- it won't start another transaction: https://github.com/apache/tapestry-5/blob/master/tapestry-jpa/src/main/java/org/apache/tapestry5/internal/jpa/Com

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Martin Kersten < martin.kersten...@gmail.com> wrote: > I review some code and I ran into the transaction issue. Annotating a > service @CommitAfter seams to be inappropriate if you have another service > method using it and is itself annotated with the @CommitAfte

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

Last line of my post should read "Tapestry doesn't support nested transactions" So to answer your question: you are right. On Aug 23, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Lenny Primak wrote: > Tapestry transaction support isn't meant to be a comprehensive solution. > It can be used as a starter mechanism but if

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

Tapestry transaction support isn't meant to be a comprehensive solution. It can be used as a starter mechanism but if you want true transaction management, I would recommend using full JEE server. It doesn't support nested transactions. On Aug 23, 2013, at 3:11 AM, Martin Kersten wrote: > I

Re: Transactions and AfterCommit

Hi Martin You are right. Please file a jira. I will look into it this weekend. regards Taha On 23-Aug-2013, at 12:41 PM, Martin Kersten wrote: > I review some code and I ran into the transaction issue. Annotating a > service @CommitAfter seams to be inappropriate if you have another service >