I've moved the code to it's final destination: https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.transx
I'll work on the README next to provide actually useful information... 2017-07-06 16:48 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>: > Fwiw, I just pushed to https://github.com/gnodet/org.ops4j.pax.transx a > transaction api + 3 implementation bundles for Geronimo, Narayana and > Atomikos. > The API is designed to support Last-Resource-Commit (supported by Geronimo > and Narayana) and recovery (supported by all 3 transaction managers). > I'll work on more thorough testing in the coming days... > > Guillaume > > 2017-06-20 16:49 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward <[email protected]>: > >> >> On 20 Jun 2017, at 15:28, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]<mailto:gnod >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 2017-06-20 12:53 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>>: >> >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> The OSGi Alliance is an open organisation, and a number of OPS4j >> developers are already members via their companies. There is absolutely >> nothing preventing them from getting involved with the Alliance, nor >> preventing any non-members from joining. >> >> On the other hand to maintain the openness of its standards the OSGi >> Alliance must have a strict IP policy, one that prevents it from consuming >> arbitrary code or IP from external sources. If OPS4j are able to get to a >> compatible place contribution-wise then I'm sure you'd see a flow of work >> in the other direction too. >> >> As for Aries Tx Control - a Narayana based XA implementation would be a >> great addition, as would JMS support. >> >> >> I agree, I may look at it in the future, but that would be easily based on >> what I'm proposing here. Aries tx-control does not necessarily have to >> host the pooling code, but rather the rfc 220 integration code imho. >> >> >> >> Wrapping the Geronimo transaction manager is deliberate for three reasons: >> >> * the javax.transaction package is toxic due to its split package in the >> JRE. Hiding all of the JTA code allows the impl to work without system >> packages being declared when launching the OSGi framework. >> >> >> That’s not specific to the Geronimo TM afaik. >> >> This is not specific to the Geronimo TM, but it is a reason that wrapping >> a TM is preferable to consuming one from another bundle. Wrapping lets the >> JTA package usage be purely internal, and avoids the toxic class space >> issues. >> >> >> >> >> * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can offer last participant >> support >> >> >> I don't think that's true either. Geronimo TM itself offers no support >> for >> enlisting local resources. What tx-control does is wrap local resources >> with the LocalXAResourceImpl and just expect everything will be ok. The >> TM should at list make sure that such wrapped local resources should be >> called last in the prepare phase. Afaik, that's not the case with the >> Geronimo TM. I think the current code should work as is with other TM, or >> better of some can offer real support for this use case. >> I think Narayana simply requires the XAResource to implement a specific >> interface Last in order to be called last in the prepare phase and lessen >> the possibilities of something bad happening. >> >> >> The Aries TX control implementation wraps the resource and adds it to the >> last place in the resource list. It does this safe in the knowledge that >> Geronimo calls resources in a FIFO order when preparing. This is not >> required to be true for other implementations (which may optimise their >> calls in different ways), and so requires knowledge of the specific >> implementation logic. Similarly, implementing a Narayana interface requires >> you to know that the implementation will pay attention to the interface, >> and cannot be done speculatively. >> >> >> >> * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can support XA recovery >> >> >> Yes, it's really unfortunate that the JTA spec has not covered this part. >> I'm wondering if we there's a place for a small project which would offer >> an api and wrappers around existing TM so that they could be switched if >> needed, and more importantly, so that code can access those non standard >> features without dealing with the specifics. >> I may try working on this part next, then maybe integrate both into >> tx-control. >> >> I think that this would need to be custom per-provider, but a Narayana >> implementation would definitely be useful. >> >> >> >> This model gives a great level of functionality in an easy to access way >> for users, and I would be keen to keep this option. A pluggable model is >> possible, but would need to be done carefully to ensure that scopes could >> cope with external parties "messing with" the transaction. It would also >> lose the benefits described above, although neither of these things mean >> that it would not be worth adding as an alternative implementation. >> >> Finally - I am not sure why tx Control would have a dependency on pax jdbc >> (other than as a source of DataSourceFactory services)? This sounds like >> it >> would make the Aries project harder to configure and deploy, and I can't >> immediately see what additional benefits it would provide. Can you >> clarify? >> >> >> From a high level, pax-jdbc aims at providing DataSourceFactory while >> tx-control aims at integrating those into the transaction api. So it could >> make sense to layer them. I haven’t looked at the specifics though... >> >> I think that this layering already exists. Right now the Tx Control JDBC >> and JPA providers expect to find and make use of a standard >> DataSourceFactory service. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tim >> >> >> Guillaume >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 20 Jun 2017, at 11:00, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]<mailto:gnod >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 2017-06-16 11:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Nicholson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> >> Doesn’t this directly clash with OSGi Alliance Transaction Control >> Specification work going on in Aries? >> >> If so, wouldn’t it make more sense for this community to input into that >> work rather than cause needless confusion / fragmentation? >> >> >> Just a thought. >> >> >> Yeah, I'm a bit skeptic about the relationship between the OPS4j >> community >> and the OSGi Alliance work. It seems to always go in the same >> direction... >> i.e. the guys working at OPS4j should help working on the project defined >> by the guys working at the OSGi Alliance. >> >> That being said, the work in Aries is about defining a new programming >> model for transactions. That's something I'm not really interested in at >> this point. In addition, my initial goal is to have support for JMS + >> Narayana and both aspects are not covered. In particular, it does create >> and wrap the geronimo TransactionManager instead of re-using an external >> one (even the one defined in Aries Transaction for example). >> >> In theory, things should be layered. For example, pax-jdbc provides a >> way >> to expose DataSourceFactory objects in the OSGi registry. Imho, >> pooling >> should be done at this level, as specified in the DataSourceFactory >> interface. So pooling inside aries-tx-control is irrelevant. >> >> This project is even at a lower level and I plan to integrate it below >> pax-jdbc for the jdbc part. >> >> That said, I may have a look at aries-tx-control and see if I can replace >> some of the code there to leverage pax-jdbc and pax-transx more to help >> avoiding confusion and fragmentation. >> >> >> >> On 15 Jun 2017, at 13:55, Toni Menzel <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Sounds interesting! >> Two comments: >> >> - i find the whole space of "pooling resources" a not confusing and >> hard >> to find out what you actually really need. So, say once you know you >> want >> takaricp, which other bridges and matching configs do you need so that >> the >> DataSource proxy (for JDBC) appears in your Service Registry. Maybe >> it's >> just me not following bridge provider-projects like Aries too closely. >> Anything that makes setup simpler and offers a wider range of options >> is >> highly welcome. (particularly in the OPS4J community, or how Bndtools >> people say "P A X" ;) >> - Any reason why this is not Pax Tx (org.ops4j.pax.tx) ?Find the >> Transx a bit alien. just an idea. >> >> Thanks for your heads up, JB about karaf-boot. Was wondering what >> happened >> to it. >> >> Toni >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Achim Nierbeck < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> sounds like a good idea to me, and the pax space like the perfect eco >> system :) >> >> regards, Achim >> >> 2017-06-15 10:20 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >> >> +1 >> >> It sounds like a good idea and definitely a good candidate for PAX. >> >> By the way, on my side, I did good progress on: >> - karaf sample & new dev guide >> - some new updates on karaf-boot >> - ServiceMix APIMan for API/Service Discovery, Management, Gateway >> But I will send an update in separate threads. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> >> On 06/15/2017 09:57 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >> I began to work on a small project which aims at providing support >> for >> pooled XA-enabled connections for JDBC and JMS. >> >> For JDBC, the problem was already solved in pax-jdbc by using either >> pax-jdbc-pool-aries when deploying the Aries/Geronimo transaction >> manager, >> and by using pax-jdbc-pool-narayana when using the Narayana >> transaction >> manager. >> >> However, there's absolutely no support for JMS. >> >> So what I've been doing is to reuse the geronimo JCA connector, make >> it >> independent on Geronimo TM and add support for Narayana, use a clone >> of >> the >> old tranql adapter for JDBC and rewrite a new JMS 2.0 compatible >> adapter >> for JMS. >> >> It's not in a usable state yet, but I wanted to give an heads-up. >> My plan is to make the pooling almost transparent in OSGi, and reuse >> it >> instead of the connection pooling I added to Karaf a few weeks ago >> which >> does not support XA or recovery: >> https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/jms/pool >> and maybe to plug it into pax-jdbc to replace pax-jdbc-pool-aries >> and >> pax-jdbc-pool-narayana. >> >> The source code is currently available at: >> https://github.com/gnodet/org.ops4j.pax.transx >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> [email protected] >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Apache Member >> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC >> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> >> Committer & >> Project Lead >> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> >> >> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
