Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1474114874265-5787668.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1474087020232-5787657.post@n5.nabble.com> <CAGB5yNky9T3hsc81UeHuhdt2vruhT_CLCxo2qShdt0g3Ch+n0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1474114874265-5787668.post@n5.nabble.com>
From: Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:25:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGB5yNn6AMxBBRh12=5q=N1OuRSBT9iomDLeXcmGRa-d4Or7ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Transaction management when multicasting within a route
To: "users@camel.apache.org" <users@camel.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 13:26:31 -0000

You can do the stuff that should not participate in the transaction in
parallel, but all the DB updates etc should be single threaded and
sequential.

There is no free lunch when it comes to TX and especially if you use
XA with 2-phase commit.


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:21 PM, sairam75 <sairamyandluri7@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response Claus.
>
> Agreed that the transaction should be done in a single transaction. The idea
> behind having multicasting is, we provide services and time complexity is
> one of our major concerns. Hence we have multiple threads for invoking
> independent write/update calls. In this case, for transaction management we
> would need to sacrifice the time and can make all the calls as sequential.
> So there isn't a way to manage as a transaction though when there are
> multiple threads.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transaction-management-when-multicasting-within-a-route-tp5787657p5787668.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2