TxnHandler vs Transaction, TrnsactionManager vs TransactionManagerInternal

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

it seems that the TransactionManagerInternal interface was added to 
expose the getCurTxn only to the package where it has been added too, 
but later, this method has been moved to the TransactionManager 
interface in order to make this method available elsewhere. Should we 
keep the TransactionManagerInternal interface ?

Same for Transaction and TxnHandler : should we have those two 
interfaces, when the TxnHandler is empty ? Can't we merge both of them ?

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com

Re: TxnHandler vs Transaction, TrnsactionManager vs TransactionManagerInternal

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Hmmm, seems that those interfaces have been created to separate what is 
exposed to the users and what is purely internal. A bit confusing, but I 
don't have time to think of a better approach right now, so let's keep 
those guys around atm.

On 12/23/11 11:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems that the TransactionManagerInternal interface was added to 
> expose the getCurTxn only to the package where it has been added too, 
> but later, this method has been moved to the TransactionManager 
> interface in order to make this method available elsewhere. Should we 
> keep the TransactionManagerInternal interface ?
>
> Same for Transaction and TxnHandler : should we have those two 
> interfaces, when the TxnHandler is empty ? Can't we merge both of them ?
>


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com