qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Mallassi <olivier.malla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [C++/Java Broker] [Transactions]
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2016 07:51:55 GMT
Hi all,


sorry.

I have tried to summarize all this content in this table
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JilNwbBSftHxPZymJoaSeSA1uxpp9ZwXZyzDM9q6LQA/edit?usp=sharing

Hope that helps

oliv/

PS: thx for the precisions on the link between on
session/transaction/process.



On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 01/05/2016 11:42 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> On 4 January 2016 at 19:59, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/30/2015 06:37 PM, aconway wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe dispatch *could* support at least some of the AMQP 1.0 TX and
>>>> DTX modes even with message routing, we just haven't gotten there yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For local transactions, any transfer or disposition related to the
>>> transaction needs to be routed to the same process, over the same
>>> connection[1], as that to which the transaction controller link is
>>> routed.
>>>
>>> [1] If the multi-ssns-per-txn capability is not supported by the process
>>> in
>>> question, the same session would have to be used. If the
>>> multi-txns-per-ssn
>>> capability was not supported then you would need a unique session for
>>> every
>>> distinct transaction.
>>>
>>>
>> To clarify that last bit, I asume you mean every currently active
>> transaction?
>>
>
> Yes, once the transaction is completed the session would be free to be
> associated with another one.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message