On 6/20/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
> As I understand, JMS does not have a concept
> of transactions, probably also other solutions mentioned before,
> so to use PgQ as backend for them should be much simpler...

JMS certainly does have the concept of transactions. Both distributed
ones through XA and two-phase commit, and local involving just one JMS
provider. I don't know about others, but would be surprised if they didn't.

Ah, sorry, my mistake then.  Shouldn't trust hearsay :)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to