Uploaded image for project: 'JBoss Transaction Manager'
  1. JBoss Transaction Manager
  2. JBTM-14

Transactions over JBoss remoting support



    • Type: Task
    • Status: Closed (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 4.5.0
    • Component/s: JTA, JTS
    • Labels:


      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

      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.

        Gliffy Diagrams




              • Assignee:
                jhalliday Jonathan Halliday
                marklittle Mark Little
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                0 Start watching this issue


                • Created: