[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBossTS/JBossJCA XA/Local transactions

[mark.little@jboss.com]

"weston.price at jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : 
  |   | It could, but to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we'd need to provide backward compatibility in other areas, e.g., disabling recovery by default, stopping distributed transactions, no Web Services support, poor documentation? Not a good argument IMO ;-) 
  |   | 
  | 
  | Red Herring.  Nice try. 
  | 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | You can if they support 2PC. If they don't, then there is no point in putting them both in a single 2PC transaction anyway.
  |   | 
  | 
  | This is the crux of the issue. Technically, IMO this scnerio should never involve the use of an external TM to begin with. Rather, it should be handled locally per ResourceManager. This would be something I think we should consider looking at as  a'solution'. 
  | 

Hey, who said we'd not agree on something ;)?

anonymous wrote : 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | Sure, JBossTM let you put N one-phase aware participants into a transaction, but it didn't/couldn't give you any guarantees in the presence of failures. In that case, there really is little point in doing the work within a transaction: you get the overhead of 2PC without any of the benefits. 
  |   | 
  | 
  | Yes! Please refer to my previous comment.
  | 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | If customers think that they are getting benefits from this kind of scenario then I think they are being ill advised. This is an education issue rather than a technical debate. 
  |   | 
  | 
  | I am not sure 'benefits' is the right term. What customers typically *DO NOT* want is for stuff that worked in one version to suddenly stop working in the next.
  | 

That depends how you explain it to them. Remember: A is for Atomic ;-)

anonymous wrote : 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | I did say it was obvious. However, since you appear(ed) to be advocating something that was also obviously a very bad idea, I thought it best not to leave anything to chance! 
  |   | 
  | 
  | Sigh...As I *thought* I clearly stated, I am not advocating this solution. 
  | 
  | My quotes:
  | 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | 
  |   |  'I am not saying we 'should' support it...'
  |   | 
  |   |   and
  |   |  
  |   |  'Let me reiterate, I am not advocating this type of configuration.'
  |   | 
  |   |  finally
  |   | 
  |   |  Since this functionality exists in JBossTM, I believe this warrants some discussion.
  |   | 
  |   | 
  | 
  | Again, I am not advocating so much as I am raising it as a red flag moving forward. 
  | 
  | anonymous wrote : 
  |   | Let's wait and see. But this isn't related to "theory". It's a core requirement of any ACID transaction system to guarantee consistency in the presence of failures or concurrent access to data. Repeat after me: A stands for ATOMIC ;-) 
  |   | 
  | 
  | I can think of another word *A* stands for right about now ;-)
  | 

Yeah, me too and I haven't even got to C yet ;-)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989039#3989039

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989039