As far as I understood you need the transaction handlers to be get
called by the same thread that will call the Service impl.

I think you are safe ..in Axis2 the Service impl is called by
component called a Message Receiver  .. there could be Sync or Async.
If you use the Sync one (which is the default one :) )  it is the same
thread that call the handler and the Service impl.

If it is Async one threads are different, I think we can copy the
transaction context at the point of creating the thread explicitly
(See Async*MessageReceiver) .. it is not there yet.

See http://ws.apache.org/axis2/Axis2ArchitectureGuide.html#mr
Srinath

I cc the dev list to make sure other devs see this too, Thanks very
much for the comments .. we are looking forward for more !! :)



On 9/30/05, Guy Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Axis team,
>
> We at Atomikos are using Axis (currently 1.2) to implement web service
> transaction support.
> However, I recently found out about the axis 2 architecture which seems
> a good answer to all the problems we encountered with 1.2 (such as no
> support for WS-Addressing, insufficient support for asynchronous
> messaging etc).
>
> During our implementation of transaction handlers, we also found it to
> be necessary that handlers have access to the same thread context that
> will be used by the service implementation.
> This is because the Java JTA binding of the WS-Transaction
> specification will require this feature.
> After going through the Axis2 documentation it is not yet clear if this
> is  the case in Axis2 (it works in 1.2, though).
>
> Since support for WS-* standards seems to be one of the goals of Axis2,
> I thought I would let you guys know about this.
>
> Best,
> Guy
>
> Dr. Guy Pardon ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
> Atomikos: The Transaction Processing Company
> http://www.atomikos.com/
>
> Visit my personal blog spot at http://guysblogspot.blogspot.com
>
> The information in this email is confidential and only meant for the
> addressee(s). The content of this email is informal and will not be
> legally binding for Atomikos.
>
>

Reply via email to