I got it working for now. Thank you very much for your help. See my
comments below.
Quoting Benjamin Schmeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
resumes the Transaction (by calling resume() on the
TransactionManagerImpl). It takes the SOAP messages and enhances it with
the coordination context by calling:
SOAPHeader header = message.getSOAPEnvelope().getHeader();
tx.getCoordinationContex().toSOAPHeaderElement(header);
why do you have to call resume if you are directly serializing the coordination
context into the message?
I don't need that, you are rright.
an alternative is to have the proxy (TXWS) use the tm
to add in the context-- say if you have a debit(acc#, amt) method in the actual
service, the proxy would have a method (stub) like
debit(txid, acc#, amt) {
tx = get(txid)
tm.resume(tx);
r = debit(acc#, amt)
tm.suspend(tx);
return r;
}
My transaction proxy may not send the application messages itself,
because in my scenario there are also interceptors for security and
reliable messaging.
also keep in mind that kandula uses reference properties. so you need to copy
those as well when you forward a messages.
calling
SOAPHeader header = message.getSOAPEnvelope().getHeader();
tx.getCoordinationContex().toSOAPHeaderElement(header);
seems to be enough.
which closes the Envelope tag is not there. When I look at the message
with debugging, this ">" is definetly existing. The same occurs in the
followed registration message. There is no response and no error.
try adding the missing > manually and resending the message. also the
addressing handler reroutes any replies with a reply-to element using another
connection.
The problem was that when I enhanced the application message
"manually", there should not be a transaction handler in the request flow.
The ">" seems to be missing if the transaction handler cannot handle the
message.
are you using both TxHandlers (*.coordinator.at./*.geronimo.*)
at the same time? this will not work and there shouldn't be a need to do so
either.
No
Is my project realizable at all with kandula? I think there is maybe a
problem that the transaction is spanning several threads (Everytime
there is an operation on the TXWS there is a new one an there is one for
my client).
multiple threads is not an issue.
thanks,
--dasarath
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
