Hi there,
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Ole Husgaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. August 2001 07:35
>An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Betreff: Re: [JBoss-dev] jbosspool: implementation of connectionClosed()
>in org.jboss.pool.connector.BaseConnectionManager$XAListener
>Hi,
>This change makes sense to me.
Fine, it also makes sense for our VBSF (http://www.objectmatter.com)
resource which is
quite stringent wrt. to correct suspend/resume notifications ;-)
>However, be aware that it would perform slightly slower,
>as the TM at commit time would have to enlist the
>resource with the TX before delisting it with TMSUCCESS.
But I think that the advantage of being able to reuse the pooled resource
is higher than the overhead which would IMHO (do not know the full
implications of a resume
on an arbitrary XA connection) be neclectable against the following
prepare/commit stuff.
>See my comment in TxCapsule.java, around line 1170.
>Basically, I think that JTA contradicts itself, as it
>says that (on page 41) that a suspended resource _must_
>be resumed with TMRESUME, but the state tables on page
>17-18 say that it is legal to do end(TMSUCCESS) on a
>suspended resource.
>The reason that I implemented TxCapsule as JTA says on
>page 41 is that Minerva didn't like two end() calls in
>a row.
Hmm, if we would adopt the (reasonable) state table from page 17-18
as the ultimate spec (all those fuzzy words, bah!), this would mean
that we have to change Minverva, don�t we?
In the meantime, I think that your strategy to resume/end(TMSUCCESS) is
fine.
Which would be the right unit test to see whether I did not break anything?
CGJ
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
