Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support to configure the transaction manager in SimpleJobOperator #1078

Closed
spring-projects-issues opened this issue Aug 11, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@spring-projects-issues
Copy link
Collaborator

Nico opened BATCH-2524 and commented

SimpleJobOperator stop() is decorated with @Transactional, therefore
we cannot configure the transactionManager name as the other components , forcing the implementation of org.springframework.transaction.annotation.TransactionManagementConfigurer to set the transactionManager to use.


Affects: 3.0.7

@Matheus-Rangel
Copy link

Any update about this issue?

@minimalistinnovator
Copy link

I am running into the same problem in one of listeners where I am explicitly calling the SimpleJobOperator to stop the execution.

@nkuflk
Copy link

nkuflk commented May 20, 2020

Any update about this issue?

@fmbenhassine
Copy link
Contributor

No, we are working on the upcoming v4.3 and this issue is not planned for it. We will let you know in which version this issue will be addressed. Contributions are welcome.

@fmbenhassine
Copy link
Contributor

Along with #4195, both the transaction manager and the transaction attributes are now configurable in the proxy created around the JobOperator. This is indeed more flexible than the usage of a statically defined @Transactional on methods.

cc @nkuflk @Matheus-Rangel @minimalistinnovator

@fmbenhassine fmbenhassine changed the title Allow configure TransactionManager for jobOperator.stop [BATCH-2524] Add support to configure the transaction manager in SimpleJobOperator Sep 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants