[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBossTS/JBossJCA XA/Local transactions

"bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : We're not forcing users. We have zero users who need this. The one user who thought he did was able to move to a two-phase approach. | | How do you know? What percentage of JBoss users are using JBoss TS currently? Is it even 0.1%? | This is the first time such a request has come up since November 2005. When JBossTS was HP-TS we had a couple of requests and they turned out to be bogus, i.e., could be fixed by changing the application. And we had a fair few customers back then too. I'm not saying that there won't be more requests. What I am saying is that at the moment there are none. Plus, when/if we get more I'd like to see whether or not these things can be fixed correctly rather than by encouraging users to do something that is fundamentally flawed. If that's not possible (for whatever reason), then we can address the issue. anonymous wrote : | anonymous wrote : | | "for the sake or purity"? Well, in this case my definition of "purity" is that it conforms to the protocol and guarantees data consistency in the presence of arbitrary failures. Believe it or not, it is important for customers. | | | | Who said anything about breaking consistency? Weston was just asking for a damn switch. | If you go this route and allow multiple one-phase resources in the same transaction then you risk losing data consistency in the presence of a failure. If ALL users of JBossTM understood what they were doing in that case, then there'd be less of a problem. However, I reckon the majority of them don't know. Plus, I reckon if they were informed of the issue and alternatives were pointed out, many of them would go for the alternative (assuming it was relatively painless). anonymous wrote : | anonymous wrote : | | Over the years JBossTS has, by itself, generated multi-million dollar revenues. So it has to work. People trust that it will work correctly. | | | | I know JBossTS is kick-ass and rock solid, but you need to understand that we're dealing with orders of magnitude higher user base than Arjuna ever had. | Understood. But that just means that there are more people out there who may be convinced of doing things right this time ;-) anonymous wrote : | anonymous wrote : | | As I said above, if there really are customers out there who simply cannot do their work any other way then we can look at the best way to support this. But at the moment, I don't see the need. | | | | All i know is that when we had that warning message in old TM I was talking about, there were TONS of questions on the forums/mail lists about it. "Why am I getting this warning message every transaction?". Since, until recently I believe, the most popular OSS databases didn't support XA and/or a JDBC XA Driver, my $5.00 bet is that there is a percentage of users who will run smack into this with JBoss 5. I also bet that the majority of Arjuna customers required XA aware resources and thus never used DBs like MySQL and Postgres. | | anonymous wrote : | | BTW, let's try not to make this personal. Believe it or not, but the exchange Weston and I had last night was very good natured. | | Sure. I just get extremely irritated when people talk in absolutes. | Haven't you also been talking absolutes? In that we absolutely need to support this? I've never said we absolutely don't need to support it. I'm arguing for supporting it when/if there's a real need (where the definition of real is that existing users/customers can't be persuaded of the risk they are running). anonymous wrote : | Also. Sorry. I'm just not good natured in general. It takes too much effort and I just don't have Weston's talent for wit. OK. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989386#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...