"jhalliday" wrote :
| So your options are: keep some meta data around after the timeout, so that you can
reply 'rollback only'
|
If we keep some meta data lying around, we may as well just keep the transaction branch
and not roll it back. At least that would give the tx mgr the opportunity to commit at
some time too. It seems to me timing out without being able to delete the branch state in
the RM seems a bit pointless.
anonymous wrote :
| , or throw away everything and reply 'unknown tx id'.
|
Seems sensible. At least then we can delete the state.
anonymous wrote :
| BTW, what's the perceived advantage to you in implementing timeouts at the
resource level, given that users will (hopefully) set an overall tx timeout interval if
they want one?
Set and getTransactionTimeout are on the xaresource API so would it's my understanding
they would be called by the transaction manager?? If the tx mgr does decide to call them,
then it's my assumption that we need to implement them in a way that doesn't break
anything.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4186362#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...