On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 12:34 PM, David Ward wrote:
I guess my fundamental question is, is it a transaction that has a reference to a thread (which seems pretty limited - probably for good reasons initially), or is it the thead that carries the reference to the transaction (context)? If it's the later, that's when I suggested that InheritableThreadLocal could come into service. Each spawned thread could still access the tx from the InheritableThreadLocal. If it's the prior, then I'll have learned something and retract with my tail between my legs - no problem.I think you would have a very difficult time building a transaction manager that could allow multiple threads in a single transaction. Just to start with, you would have a huge problem with serialized isolation. Then you would have a big problem with connectors as everyone assumes you only have one thread in a tx at a time (this is a huge step forward from the days when you could only have a single thread per tx and it always had to be the same one... old junk).
Anything is possible, but is it worth it, when you can get 95% of the need from a JMS queue and new transactions?
-dain
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
