On 2002.10.03 22:12:42 -0400 Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
> > On 2002.09.27 16:21:33 -0400 Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> >
> >>David Jencks wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Igor,
> >>>
> >>>I'd like to stick with the jboss tm and add the needed functionality.
> >>>
> >>>Can you outline what you have been thinking of?
> >>
> >>I want to allow resource manager specific variation of XAResource state
>
> >>change sequence. This way we'll decouple different RMs from each other
> >>and developers will be able to concentrate on one RM without concerns
> to
> >>break others. I have very brief idea how this can be implemented, but I
>
> >>believe it is doable and not too complicated.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to see what you have in mind.
> I'm thinking about creating xa resource handlers responsible for making
> calls on xa resources. TransactionImpl will keep track of all xa
> resources involved into the transaction but will delegate "real" xa work
> to the appropriate handler. These handlers will implement interface
> something like:
>
> interface XAResourceHandler {
> void commit(TransactionImpl tx) throws ...;
> boolean delistResource(TransactionImpl tx, int flag) throws ...;
> boolean enlistResource(TransactionImpl tx) throws ...;
> void rollback(TransactionImpl tx) throws ...;
> }
>
> We will provide DefaultXAResourceHandler which will work with ideal xa
> resource implementations but will allow registration of rm specific
> implementations which will support whatever crazy logic in necessary to
> work with the rm.
>
> Obviously I do not know all implementation details yet but I am pretty
> sure that it will not complicate our code much. Unfortunately I do not
> know when I'll be able to implement it.
This looks like it would work, but I don't see why this would be better
than implementing specific XAResource wrappers for the bizarre XAResource
implementations. I'm thinking
txImpl calls say XAWrapper.start(xid, TMRESUME)
and XAWrapper says, hmmm I don't support resume, I'll get a new branch on
this tx and call BizarroXAResource.start(newXid, TMJOIN).
I think with either approach their may be problems keeping track of all the
modifications. Anyway I wonder if you have thought of this and know of
problems with it.
thanks
david jencks
>
> >
> >
> >>>Also, is the new xa wrapper in cvs HEAD working well enough to move to
> >>
> >>3.2?
> >>
> >>>Should we even move it to 3.0?
> >>
> >>What do you think about cached javax.jdbc.XAConnection.getConnection()
> >>problem I've mentioned few days ago? Can we afford saying "Oracle 8i is
>
> >>not supported in XA mode"?
> >
> >
> > I don't know... saying it isn't supported might be better than all the
> > problems people are having.
> >
> > Do you think it is ok to get a new Connection from the XAConnection
> > whenever associateConnection is called? If we can do this, it wouldn't
> be
> > too hard to change. I'm still mystified as to how Oracle can tell how
> many
> > Connection handles we are using and how it can decide to object.
>
> Well, most likely I misinterpreted the behaviour I've observed ;-) I
> believe oracle 8i should work fine with TrackConnectionByTx.
>
> --
> Igor Fedorenko
> Think smart. Think automated. Think Dynamics.
> www.thinkdynamics.com
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
