Mark Little [
http://community.jboss.org/people/marklittle] created the discussion
"Re: Remoting Transport Transaction Inflow Design Discussion"
To view the discussion, visit:
http://community.jboss.org/message/629336#629336
--------------------------------------------------------------
Understood, but TS is not a 3rd party project and we shouldn't be in a situation where
it's even necessary to consider it as such.
Jason Greene wrote:
> Mark Little wrote:
>
> I suspect that the recent comments also gave credence to the fact that there was a
push to get something, no matter what, into 6.0.
Just to clarify my position is
1. We need a decent stop-gap for EAP 6.0, whatever that may be
2. We need the real solution in EAP 6.1
The fork comment wasn't emotive, it was a practical reality. If the TX project was
not going to do a 4 release that fixed the problem, then soemone else would have to.
It's essentially the same way we handle a thirdparty project (e.g. apache) that does
not share our schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/message/629336#629336]
Start a new discussion in JBoss Transactions Development at Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]