"bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : +1 for Weston. | | Mark, why are you being so religious and academic. Weston states all valid cases for the feature. Transactions/unit of work is still extremely useful even without 2pc. Bill, this is not academic. Multiple one-phase resources in a two-phase transaction does not give you the consistency and atomicity guarantees. When you don't support recovery then it really doesn't make a difference. But when you do, it is wrong to support this and give the impression that this is a valid approach. This is not a transaction (where the definition of transaction is JTA, JTS/OTS, XA, WS-T ACID transaction). If we want to support this, then we should be doing so through some other interface, which makes it clear that the failure and recovery semantics are different. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989213#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...