[jbossts-issues] [JBoss JIRA] Updated: (JBTM-14) Transactions over JBoss remoting support

Transactions over JBoss remoting support ---------------------------------------- Key: JBTM-14 URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBTM-14 Project: JBoss Transaction Manager Issue Type: Task Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) Components: JTS Implementation, JTA Implementation Reporter: Mark Little Assigned To: Jonathan Halliday Priority: Minor Fix For: 4.4 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.