[jboss-dev] transactions change in AS 5.0

[Mark Little]

It's worth pointing out that project Blacktie depends on JTS  
capability. Although Blacktie is further out (well, I hope we release  
AS 5 before Blacktie!) it's something to consider from a requirements  
perspective.

Mark.


On 26 Jun 2008, at 11:38, 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.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod  
> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903   
> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt  
> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland)
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>
>

----
Mark Little
mlittle at redhat.com

JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod  
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903  
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt  
Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).