[jboss-dev] transactions change in AS 5.0

[Andrig T Miller]

Speaking from the product side of things I like Adrian's idea.  I would
like to see some back time for this in the community, and I think
Adrian's solution will let us do that without simultaneously making the
AS 5 GA schedule move out any further.

Andy

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:19 +0200, Adrian Brock wrote:

> My vote would be to include the jars in the all config
> and have example configuration in docs/examples/jts
> 
> The testsuite should include a seperate group of tests
> for booting a couple of servers with the example config
> (see the clustering tests) to make sure it works.
> 
> That group of tests could be gradually expanded to run
> other tests (e.g. the smoke tests) and once we
> are happy it is all working, the jts config would
> then be a candidate for inclusion in the all config
> (its timing could be pre or post JBoss5 final
> but before EAP).
> 
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 11:38 +0100, Jonathan Halliday wrote:
> > Hello all
> > 
> > Arguably one for the AS list, but in light of potential 
> > impact on other projects I think it needs wider discussion, 
> > so hello dev list...
> > 
> > I'm pleased to say that we will shortly be announcing the 
> > change of licence terms for the JTS (distributed, 
> > interoperable transactions between e.g. EJB containers) and 
> > XTS (transactions for Web Services) parts of JBossTS from 
> > GPL/Dual to LGPL.
> > 
> > The current JBossAS release bundles our JTA ('local only' 
> > transactions), which is already LGPL.  The JTS and XTS 
> > options are available to the community as additional 
> > downloads that can be integrated into AS 4.x  The EAP 4.x 
> > releases include support for JTA only.  We have promised EAP 
> > 5.x will include JTS also, and probably at least some parts 
> > of XTS.
> > 
> > Now that it's legally feasible to do so, does the AS dev 
> > community wish to include either JTS or XTS with the AS 5.x 
> > releases, in order to provide users with these increased 
> > capabilities?
> > 
> > I see the advantages as: The AS will have more functionality 
> > out of the box and can be pulled into the EAP with fewer 
> > changes. For both cases it would otherwise be necessary to 
> > retrofit the additional transactions pieces and retest the 
> > server.
> > 
> > I see the disadvantages as: Changing something as core as 
> > the transactions engine between CR and GA may raise issues 
> > that further delay the release. It adds additional 
> > complexity and footprint for something not all users need.
> > 
> > Hybrid solutions are available, such as sticking with the 
> > JTA for the 'default' config and putting the JTS into the 
> > 'all' config. These further muddy the waters and complicate 
> > the testing, although I rather like it from a point of view 
> > of offering the most appropriate technical solution for 
> > users with different needs.
> > 
> > There may be a degree of tension here between the AS 
> > (community) and EAP (product).  Putting the JTS into the AS 
> > reduces the productisation work at the cost of more 
> > engineering effort in the AS for example.
> > 
> > I'm wearing my community developer hat today: JBossAS and 
> > JBossTS are open source projects, it's up to the core 
> > developers to discuss the engineering tradeoffs and make the 
> > call on this.  That may of course be unduly idealist: 
> > commercial realities dictate that EAP product management 
> > have at least some influence on the final decision :-)
> > 
> > Does anyone have strong opinions one way or the other on this?
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Jonathan Halliday
> > JBossTS dev team lead.
> > 

Andrig (Andy) Miller
VP of Engineering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20080626/c3f85cbc/attachment.html