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

[mark.little@jboss.com]

"bill.burke at jboss.com" wrote : "mark.little at jboss.com" wrote : "bill.burke at jboss.com" wrote : +1 for Weston.
  |   |   | 
  |   |   | Mark, why are you being so religious and academic.  Weston states all valid cases for the feature.  Transactions/unit of work is still extremely useful even without 2pc.
  |   | 
  |   | Bill, this is not academic. Multiple one-phase resources in a two-phase transaction does not give you the consistency and atomicity guarantees. When you don't support recovery then it really doesn't make a difference. But when you do, it is wrong to support this and give the impression that this is a valid approach. This is not a transaction (where the definition of transaction is JTA, JTS/OTS, XA, WS-T ACID transaction). If we want to support this, then we should be doing so through some other interface, which makes it clear that the failure and recovery semantics are different.
  | 
  | Listen, you don't have to spew shit I already know...
  | 
  | 

And we should stop spewing shit like 'transactions without recovery are great and useful' when they're not. They are dangerous if people don't understand the full implications of what's not happening for them.

anonymous wrote : 
  | I agree with you, but, as you see from Weston's post, it is not always possible to have an XA enabled resource.  Things just don't fit into nice little boxes all the time and sometimes developers have to break the rules. 
  | 

Yeah, but sometimes if they are told what the implications are then they'll find a better route.

anonymous wrote : 
  | We used to spew out a warning message when a non-xa resource was being used in a two-phase transaction (not sure if we still do).

JBossTM does. JBossTS supports LRCO so it doesn't have to.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989347#3989347

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989347