On 16/04/18 14:24, Alan Conway wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:10 AM, mlange <mla...@anwb.nl> wrote:
Agree with that one; a proper distributed TX would indeed be the best
solution; Couldn't find any issue in the Jira, are there plans to build
this? I think it would be a great addition.


No immediate plans that I'm aware of. It has always been a potential
feature but never at the top of the priority pile. By all means raise it,
so we can track interest and maybe encourage someone to contribute some
code.

Just for clarity, I don't see this (primarily) as a feature for the router.

A distributed transaction co-ordinator requires highly available state. It would therefore in my view be an additional component in the architecture (ideally based on some existing transaction coordinator).

Depending on the architecture of the solution, it might be that the router network does not need to do anything other than correctly propagate the transaction context along with transfers and dispositions (which it should already do) and perhaps route links for the co-ordinator (which again it can already do). If the co-ordinator was supposed to communicate with the resources through the router network, that might require some additional tweaks to the current router behaviour/feature set (at present I think it would have to use virtual hosts for each of the resources, with the link route for the controller defined appropriately).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org

Reply via email to