On 30 Jul 2013, at 23:12, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote:
> My experience with transactions is limited, so I likely am missing on > some base concept, but I don't understand why the fact that it's > running on a different process is limiting in any form. We do that > regularly from appservers, queues, RDBMS's, ... ? It's limiting in the sense that we would have to build an XAResource bridge on the node where the tx manager runs that delegates/bridges xa instructions received from the transaction manager as RPCs to the xa cache store residing on the remote node(s). This is a rather complicated approach and might involve all the bridging RPCs to be sent in sequence which would hurt the performance drastically. I think it's much nicer experience for the user to interact with ISPN as whole as an XAResource instead of Infinispan exposing the fact that its store might be XA as well. > > In this case the Infinispan node N1 needs to be coordinated by the TM > on N2, and control its "owned" resource C1. I realize that this is > possibly not trivial but somehow I expected that this was implemented > already.. isn't that a component you need for XA anyway? I'm quite > sure Narayana supports this setup as the application server does. > > AFAIK a similar design was discussed in 2010 in the Transactions over > Hot Rod design meeting; how would this be fundamentally different, if > that's possible to explain to a non-expert ? Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
