Guy Pardon of Atomikos justifies his use of "UNKNOWN" saying:
anonymous wrote :
| I think the status cannot be determined for the following reason. Imagine transaction
A started in a remote VM and imported in the local VM subsequently. Also, suppose the
local VM only does READ_ONLY work.
|
| Then, image two-phase commit:
|
| case 1:
| -transaction A prepares
| -the local VM returns READ_ONLY for all its work
| -transaction A commits
|
| case 2:
| -transaction A prepares
| -the local VM returns READ_ONLY
| -transaction A rolls back
|
| Both cases are indistinguishable by the semantics of the READ_ONLY on prepare: no
further outcome is desired.
|
| IMHO, therefore the only state that makes sense is UNKNOWN. It would be a mistake to
say COMMITTED, and likewise for ROLLEDBACK.
|
| Guy
|
Guy has later said that perhaps he could use "NO TRANSACTION" in such a
situation as well, however, it appears the JBossCache 1.4.x code will behave the same for
NO_TRANSACTION as it does for "UNKNOWN".
Thoughts? Here is the thread on the Atomikos forum.
http://www.atomikos-support.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1314
Mike
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4131917#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...