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

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to