On my view generally people like to have products that are easy to
configure and use. Most of the time its easy to configure and get
something working with a standalone product than with multiple products
/clusters. When somebody has to setup another application server to get
transactions working, there is more possibility that they will not try
it at all or mess it up.
I don't think most of the time people who are going to setup a ESB are
doing it for the enjoyment of their leisure time. But I may be wrong.
Thanks,
Irantha
Asankha C. Perera wrote:
Paul / Andreas
I definitely like being able to provide standalone JTA support without
a JEE server - like we already support DataSources without a JEE server.
Looking at real world JTA use, one would most definitely agree that
JMS and DB's are the most common, though there can and certainly will
be other resource managers. Typically a JMS provider (since we don't
bundle one), a DB, and requirement for JTA, and any other JTA aware
RMs, makes me think that the client already has a TM too :-) (e.g.
a JEE server).. but I agree this is just my personal view and I could
be wrong in some cases.. So I think we should not hard code anything
specific to any of these standalone TM's like Atomikos, JOTM etc.. or
try to implement this support immediately, as a pre-requisite to
accept the enhancements we already have.
We should rather be able to bind them (i.e. any standalone TM) to our
standalone JNDI, and use them as we use any other TM.. the research we
need here is how to do this.. and I'm sure that some users of these
may have already achieved this, or the providers of these already
knows how to do this, and would probably help us.
asankha
Andreas
The lightweight transaction managers are definitely good. I personally
like Atomikos, but I'm happy to consider any alternatives. Do you have
experience with any?
Paul
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andreas Veithen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sanjiva,
The example was just meant to illustrate my point and probably there
are better examples. I just wanted to trigger a discussion about the
direction in which we are going. I agree with the approach outlined by
Paul and I think Asankha gave some very valuable information that we
need to take into account if we want to build higher level transaction
support later.
My next question is what would be the recommendation to have
distributed transaction support (e.g. between JMS and a database) in a
Synapse stand-alone installation. Is there some lightweight Open
Source transaction manager that one can use (to avoid the burden of
installing a full-featured application server)? I'm thinking about
something as Jencks or JOTM.
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
