[JBoss JIRA] Closed: (JBTM-14) Transactions over JBoss remoting support
by Jonathan Halliday (JIRA)
[ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBTM-14?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Jonathan Halliday closed JBTM-14.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
> Transactions over JBoss remoting support
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: JBTM-14
> URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBTM-14
> Project: JBoss Transaction Manager
> Issue Type: Task
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: JTA Implementation, JTS Implementation
> Reporter: Mark Little
> Assignee: Jonathan Halliday
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 4.5
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, only the following features are present in the current JBoss TX codebase that are not present in the JTA/JTS codebase of ATS:
> - transactions over JBoss Remoting
> Francisco Reverbel commented: "Besides transactions over IIOP and JBoss Remoting, the JBoss TX codebase
> supports mixing these transports in a single transaction, e.g:
> - EJB-A, EJB-B, and EJB-C are deployed in different JBossAS instances
> - EJB-A has an IIOP ejb-ref to EJB-B and a JBRem ejb-ref to EJB-C
> - within a transaction, EJB-A uses these references to call EJB-B
> and EJB-C
> - at transction commit time, the coordinator TM drives the 2PC protocol
> using IIOP/OTS to talk to EJB-B's TM and JBRem/DTM to talk to EJB-C's
> TM.
> Support to a given transport is configurable: an appserver or EJB
> may support just JBRem, just IIOP, or both. (My plan was to have
> SOAP/WS-AT as a choice also.) This poses an interesting case: a root
> coordinator and some leaf server (which is acting as a remote resource)
> may not support the same transport. Example: server1 supports only IIOP,
> server2 supports both IIOP and JBRem, and server3 supports only JBRem.
> Within a transaction, server1 issues an IIOP request to server2, which
> calls server3 over JBRem. In such a case, JBoss TX automatically
> interposes a subordinate coordinator. (Talking of JBRem as a transport
> is a simplification, BTW. JBoss Remoting runs over various transports,
> so instead of "JBRem" I should have said "JBRem-sockets", or
> "JBRem-HTTP", or whatever...)
> All this is only in HEAD (no customers yet), so it might not be relevant
> for ATS integration. Still, I think the features are nice to keep. And
> it would be great to have SOAP/WS-AT alongside IIOP/OTS and JBRem."
> As far as the product release is concerned, I'd like to push this out to after the initial 4.2 integration period, unless there's a pressing need for it.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira