Re: [esb-dev] jca done (I think)

Cool. Hey can we use JCA within the ESB now too (I mean this work was specific to a gateway right?) , or is that still something you're working on? --K Bill Burke wrote: > > Kevin Conner wrote: >> Kurt T Stam wrote: >>> 1. So now we can use XA Txs spanning DB and JMS resources? >> We should be able to, the XA transaction should encompass them both. >> >>> 2. I'm guessing we'd still be using the old JmsGateway when running in >>> bootstrapper mode? >> Weston had intended to develop a standalone implementation of JCA which >> would have been perfect for the standalone ESB. Not sure what will >> happen to that now. >> >> Using JCA will necessitate the full blown app server or the esb profile. >> > > As I've said before, the JBoss Embeddable project *already* includes > JCA and can run inside Junit tests, Tomcat standalone, and plain Java > apps. Eventually I'll get around to refactoring it to run in other > application servers. > > The JCA rewrite will continue. Supposedly Adrian was really itching > to get back to it anyways. If he doesn't pick it up, I definately > will. Really the brunt of the JCA rewrite is to pojitize it and remove > any MBean dependencies or at least, make them "aspectized". > > The JCA integration I did with ESB should really be moved to the JCA > project as it is an abstraction for any inflow container. MDB could > be written on top of it. It has a bridge interface that would allow > you to plug in other JCA implementations, well, at least in theory. I > have no idea if any other app server has an SPI or even an API we > could hack into. If we can't do that, we could probably still embed > our own JCA implementation into another application server. > > > >>> 3. How does 'transacted' work? I mean an mdb has: supports, >>> requiresNew, >>> required, none. >> MDB only supports Required and NotSupported transaction types as they >> have no calling context. I would assume that the transacted attribute >> would be equivalent. >> > The JCA integration layer I did is really a mini MDB container, so > yes, that's what it means. > > Bill >