Hi!
Tommy Hellstr�m wrote:
> > > Isn't JTS required to be able
> > > to communicate with other's TM's?
> >
> > Only if they are from another vendor and that other vendor uses JTS.
>
> Exactly. But I expect other vendors to support JTS so isn't it a good thing to
> support it in jBoss as well?
Only if we were IIOP/CORBA based, which we're not. To support JTS but
not be IIOP-based is pretty pointless.
> The spec is pretty good along with an understanding of OTS. I do not think it is
> rocket science either but I really think that it is quite complicated when it comes
> to supporting transactions that spans more than one TM or even with more than one
> XAResource (RM).
Why?
> Cause a RM can't help you much for distributed transactions. What I
> think makes it hard is the OTS concept of "subordinate coordinates" (I think all TM
> implementations need that, no matter if it is an OTS implementation or another.)
Sure, any decent TM would use subcoordinators. Still not very difficult.
> and
> the large amount of possible failures that can happen,
All of which are reported to the TM as an exception.
> still, it isn't rocket
> science but I still think it is a programming task that required a lots of time to
> be stable and complete.
Agreed. It would take some time to get it perfect.
But IMHO doing JTS is not the best way to do it. Since TM's are
pluggable in the jBoss architecture it should be possible for someone
wanting a JTS-based one to use that instead (although that someone would
have to implement a RMI/IIOP plugin to make sense of it). The jBoss
container design only uses the JTA interfaces to do its work, so I
wouldn't expect too many troubles with it. It might even be possible to
integrate, today, Tyrex or the JOnAS TM should that be desired.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
