-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ole
Husgaard
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
The OTS policy only supports the equivalents of never
What you implemented is fine. My only problem with it is that I
think it is more logical to let the server decide if it needs the
tx, and that I think the registration callback could be avoided
(with minimal redundant client side bookkeeping) even if the
decision is made on the server side.
On 2003.02.19 09:37 Bill Burke wrote:
What you implemented is fine. My only problem with it is that I
think it is more logical to let the server decide if it needs the
tx, and that I think the registration callback could be avoided
(with minimal redundant client side bookkeeping) even if
David Jencks wrote:
On 2003.02.17 04:20 Ole Husgaard wrote:
Deciding to avoid the resource registration callback when
the tx is not used at server side is a fine thing.
However, I fail to see why this decision has to be done at
the client side. All the information needed for the
Anatoly Akkerman wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
4) invocation is routed to correct transport mechanism (such as by the HA
Invoker interceptor)(AFAIK not yet written as an interceptor)
5) Invocation is received at server side.
6) The server decides if the resource registration callback is
I'm now quite confused about what you are arguing for.
1. There is currently no support whatsoever in any jboss version for
transactions over CORBA/IIOP, nor has there ever been. I have not yet
considered how best to implement this. I don't think this will be used
very much so I am willing to
David Jencks wrote:
4) invocation is routed to correct transport mechanism (such as by the HA
Invoker interceptor)(AFAIK not yet written as an interceptor)
5) Invocation is received at server side.
6) The server decides if the resource registration callback is needed.
And the resource
David Jencks wrote:
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not write some client
side stuff.
Here is the sequence of events for a call
On 2003.02.15 09:57 Igor Fedorenko wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make
unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not write some
client
David Jencks wrote:
On 2003.02.15 09:57 Igor Fedorenko wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make
unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sacha
Labourey
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
Why is this unfortunate? I thought it was a great
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
Jencks
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
The design goal is to produce a working dtm
On 2003.02.13 08:22 Bill Burke wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David
Jencks
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make
unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not write
some client
side stuff.
Here is the sequence of events for a
On 2003.02.13 10:35 Bill Burke wrote:
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make
unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx
interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not write
some client
side
This is great stuff David, I will capture this on the forums for
historical
and referencial purposes. David, this whole email thread needed to
happen.
Yes, I was being abrasive somewhat, but I did it to get your attention.
Sometimes questions get ignored if you're nice
Why is this unfortunate? I thought it was a great idea that is long
overdue. I don't see the point in doing it 2 or three times,
so I'd do it
after all the interceptors are based on a common interface/model.
Yes, its long overdue. I'm doing it nowBy unfortunate I meant, this
is a
The design goal is to produce a working dtm that does not make unnecesary
inter-vm calls. The functionality of the client side tx interceptor
appears to be unavailable with the CORBA OTS if we do not write some client
side stuff.
Here is the sequence of events for a call between vms where a
18 matches
Mail list logo
