OK, thanks - that is how our system was configured, so it was right - I was just having second thoughts. :)
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Pontus Ullgren <ullg...@gmail.com> wrote: > It all depends on your requirements and how your database and the > system consuming from the second queue is designed. > > If the write operation to the database and the system consuming from > the second queue is idempotent, ie they can both gracefully handle > that the same message is processed twice. Then you can think about > skipping XA. > > If this is NOT the case, or if you are unsure what would happen if the > same message is consumed twice, then you will need XA. > > In the scenario you describe I would defiantly consider using XA just > to be safe. > > Pontus > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Larry Meadors <larry.mead...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Just to be clear here...if you're doing this: >> - get a message from JMS broker A >> - write to database >> - put a messages in a queue on JMS broker A >> >> Should you or should you not need XA? >> Larry
