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

Jonathan Halliday (JIRA) jira-events at lists.jboss.org
Mon Oct 6 05:30:21 EDT 2008

     [ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBTM-14?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jonathan Halliday closed JBTM-14.

    Resolution: Won't Fix

> Transactions over JBoss remoting support
> ----------------------------------------
>                 Key: JBTM-14
>                 URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBTM-14
>             Project: JBoss Transaction Manager
>          Issue Type: Task
>      Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) 
>          Components: JTA Implementation, JTS Implementation
>            Reporter: Mark Little
>            Assignee: Jonathan Halliday
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.5
> 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.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


More information about the jbossts-issues mailing list