I think before making a decision we need to understand the technical differences of jta/jts and the configuration implications. I suppose I can go and RTFM, however do you see issues in having nodes in a cluster running jts? Do you need to have somekind of coordinator node or the nodes auto-arrange themselves? Jonathan Halliday wrote: > > Hello all > > Arguably one for the AS list, but in light of potential impact on > other projects I think it needs wider discussion, so hello dev list... > > I'm pleased to say that we will shortly be announcing the change of > licence terms for the JTS (distributed, interoperable transactions > between e.g. EJB containers) and XTS (transactions for Web Services) > parts of JBossTS from GPL/Dual to LGPL. > > The current JBossAS release bundles our JTA ('local only' > transactions), which is already LGPL. The JTS and XTS options are > available to the community as additional downloads that can be > integrated into AS 4.x The EAP 4.x releases include support for JTA > only. We have promised EAP 5.x will include JTS also, and probably at > least some parts of XTS. > > Now that it's legally feasible to do so, does the AS dev community > wish to include either JTS or XTS with the AS 5.x releases, in order > to provide users with these increased capabilities? > > I see the advantages as: The AS will have more functionality out of > the box and can be pulled into the EAP with fewer changes. For both > cases it would otherwise be necessary to retrofit the additional > transactions pieces and retest the server. > > I see the disadvantages as: Changing something as core as the > transactions engine between CR and GA may raise issues that further > delay the release. It adds additional complexity and footprint for > something not all users need. > > Hybrid solutions are available, such as sticking with the JTA for the > 'default' config and putting the JTS into the 'all' config. These > further muddy the waters and complicate the testing, although I rather > like it from a point of view of offering the most appropriate > technical solution for users with different needs. > > There may be a degree of tension here between the AS (community) and > EAP (product). Putting the JTS into the AS reduces the productisation > work at the cost of more engineering effort in the AS for example. > > I'm wearing my community developer hat today: JBossAS and JBossTS are > open source projects, it's up to the core developers to discuss the > engineering tradeoffs and make the call on this. That may of course > be unduly idealist: commercial realities dictate that EAP product > management have at least some influence on the final decision :-) > > Does anyone have strong opinions one way or the other on this? > > Regards > > Jonathan Halliday > JBossTS dev team lead. > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

My vote would be to include the jars in the all config and have example configuration in docs/examples/jts The testsuite should include a seperate group of tests for booting a couple of servers with the example config (see the clustering tests) to make sure it works. That group of tests could be gradually expanded to run other tests (e.g. the smoke tests) and once we are happy it is all working, the jts config would then be a candidate for inclusion in the all config (its timing could be pre or post JBoss5 final but before EAP). On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 11:38 +0100, Jonathan Halliday wrote: > Hello all > > Arguably one for the AS list, but in light of potential > impact on other projects I think it needs wider discussion, > so hello dev list... > > I'm pleased to say that we will shortly be announcing the > change of licence terms for the JTS (distributed, > interoperable transactions between e.g. EJB containers) and > XTS (transactions for Web Services) parts of JBossTS from > GPL/Dual to LGPL. > > The current JBossAS release bundles our JTA ('local only' > transactions), which is already LGPL. The JTS and XTS > options are available to the community as additional > downloads that can be integrated into AS 4.x The EAP 4.x > releases include support for JTA only. We have promised EAP > 5.x will include JTS also, and probably at least some parts > of XTS. > > Now that it's legally feasible to do so, does the AS dev > community wish to include either JTS or XTS with the AS 5.x > releases, in order to provide users with these increased > capabilities? > > I see the advantages as: The AS will have more functionality > out of the box and can be pulled into the EAP with fewer > changes. For both cases it would otherwise be necessary to > retrofit the additional transactions pieces and retest the > server. > > I see the disadvantages as: Changing something as core as > the transactions engine between CR and GA may raise issues > that further delay the release. It adds additional > complexity and footprint for something not all users need. > > Hybrid solutions are available, such as sticking with the > JTA for the 'default' config and putting the JTS into the > 'all' config. These further muddy the waters and complicate > the testing, although I rather like it from a point of view > of offering the most appropriate technical solution for > users with different needs. > > There may be a degree of tension here between the AS > (community) and EAP (product). Putting the JTS into the AS > reduces the productisation work at the cost of more > engineering effort in the AS for example. > > I'm wearing my community developer hat today: JBossAS and > JBossTS are open source projects, it's up to the core > developers to discuss the engineering tradeoffs and make the > call on this. That may of course be unduly idealist: > commercial realities dictate that EAP product management > have at least some influence on the final decision :-) > > Does anyone have strong opinions one way or the other on this? > > Regards > > Jonathan Halliday > JBossTS dev team lead. >