[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17301547#comment-17301547
]
Andreas Benneke commented on AMQ-8187:
--------------------------------------
I just extended the test case to cover the process of receiving as well.
> ActiveMQ should support local transaction even in JTA mode
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-8187
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8187
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: XA
> Affects Versions: 5.16.0, 5.16.1
> Reporter: Andreas Benneke
> Priority: Major
>
> When running a JTA environment it comes quite handy to not always having to
> blow up a full JTA transaction
> if you already know in advance, that a particular interaction does not
> require synchronization
> with other resources or interactions.
> Until 5.15 ActiveMQ did support this, but the last changes in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2659 broke this.
> When you now try to interact with ActiveMQ in such a local transaction you
> get
> {code:java}
> javax.jms.JMSException: Session's XAResource has not been enlisted in a
> distributed transaction.
> at
> org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQXASession.doStartTransaction(ActiveMQXASession.java:101)
>
> {code}
> This is perfectly correct when one want to enforce JTA transactions, but
> exactly not wanted for local transactions.
> I am not sure, where the problem here is. Some thoughts:
> * Until 5.15 the {{ActiveMQXASession}} supported this by itself, but as of
> AMQ-2659 it does no longer.
> * With AMQ-2659 one could think that the intention of the change was to make
> {{ActiveMQXASession}} no longer work outside JTA transactions.
> * I am however not sure if the consequence was intended, that is now no
> longer working in local transactions as well.
> * The {{ActiveMQXASession}} is created by
> {{ActiveMQXAConnection.createSession}}, however the first parameter
> "transacted" is effectively ignored and a (transacted) {{ActiveMQXASession}}
> is returned even if transacted is false.
> * {{createSession(false, ...)}} is exactly what the transaction managers do
> to start a session in a local transaction (e. g. see
> {{DualSessionWrapper.createNonXASession}} in Bitronix)
> * Or are the transaction managers doing something wrong here? If, how should
> sessions on such local transactions be initiated?
> Please find a stripped down test case here
> [https://github.com/abenneke/sandbox/tree/master/activemq-local-transactions].
> It has tests using Bitronix and Atomikos to reproduce the given cases.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
