The background of my question was that I would prefer to have just one database and no need for any distributed transactions. Specifically for the JMS usage is that really using a different data source / connection and hence another transaction? There is probably some config for that.
As I indicated in a previous message I am trying to integrate OfBiz with another server environment and as you say, I configured it to get the data source and the user transaction from JNDI. It's working so far, I just noticed that I had not looked into XA config so far. Thanks, Henning Technically of cou On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Henning wrote: > > While trying to understand OfBiz better, I found that OfBiz relies on >> Geronimo's JTA implementation. I have a few questions on that (sorry if >> I missed that in the documentation). >> > > By default OFBiz does use the Geronimo JTA implementation. Which > transaction manager used does depend on the configuration in the > entityengine.xml file. If you are deploying OFBiz in an external application > server the typical configuration is to get the JTA objects from JNDI. > > Is OfBiz actually using XAResources and therefore 2-phase-commits? >> >> And if, is that because of the JMS usage? >> > > Yes, we are enlisting XA resources as part of transaction management. The > original reason was to support transactions across multiple databases, and > JMS transactions are also supported this way. With the recent discussions > about the potential use of the Java content repository, specifically the > Apache Jackrabbit implementation, that would also be enlisted in the same > transactions. > > Doesn't that imply a performance penalty that should be avoided if >> possible and is there a way to configure OfBiz to handle everything >> always in a non-distributed tx? >> > > I don't know what sort of performance penalty might be involved in this. > It would be interesting to test both ways and see, as some deployments don't > need multiple databases or other enlisted resources. > > Is this something that you have played with before, and are you saying that > you would like to experiment with it? I'm not sure how many code changes > would be required as I haven't really dug into this stuff for a while, but > it should be possible to have things work one way or the other based on > configuration. > > -David > >
