Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
On Wed, June 20, 2007 18:18, Heikki Linnakangas 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.
Wait... I thought XA did two-phase commit, and then there was XA+ for
*distributed* two-phase commit, which is much harder?
Well, I meant distributed as in one transaction manager, multiple
resource managers, all participating in a single atomic transaction. I
don't know what XA+ adds on top of that.
To be precise, being a Java-thing, JMS actually supports two-phase
commit through JTA (Java Transaction API), not XA. It's the same design
and interface, just defined as Java interfaces instead of at native
library level.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
