river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Calum Shaw-Mackay <calum.shawmac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bug nominations
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:02:49 GMT
On 11 February 2011 08:56, Dan Creswell <dan.creswell@gmail.com> wrote:

> XA-compliant - red rag to a bull that is.....can't keep my mouth shut....
>

I'm not saying we SHOULD, but I know that mahalo and TransactionManager
changes were being talked about publicly towards the end of Sun's tenure as
Jini's custodian.

>
> XA and two-phase commit tend to go hand in hand and whilst that's certainly
> the current Jini spec it has some dark corners progress wise we might want
> to look at. This might entail some changes to the spec or at least some
> additional guidance.....
>

Again, the may well be many reasons not to XA mahalo, but a quick perusal by
those in the know of said dark corners, wouldn;t go amiss, even if it is to
say - 'Nope we're not doing it'


>
> On the more general "review all services point" - yes, indeed. I'd go as
> far
> as asking the question "do we still need 'em all?". Less code, makes less
> maintenance, makes for more focus on other stuff.
>
>
Or even if we don't need them all, leave them in as an 'extras' package,
that could be downloaded if required by the developer, outside of the main
build

--Calum


> On 11 February 2011 08:44, Calum Shaw-Mackay <calum.shawmackay@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > As I recall, while the code was still at Sun, there were thoughts about
> > making Mahalo XA-compliant.
> >
> > And as more general comment, taking into account both comments on
> > Outrigger, and the TransactionManager, perhaps there should be an effort
> to
> > look at all the default services supplied with River, with a view to
> seeing
> > what the shortcomings are and addressing them in River, rather than
> showing
> > them as 'just an example of a Transaction Service, etc.', because in the
> > main, most users won't reimplement the standard services.
> >
> > --Calum
> >
> > On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:49, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'd personally have a great desire to have TransactionManager be a
> focus
> > of some effort to try and finish getting its behavior to be dependable
> and
> > consistent for a single process service.
> >
> >
>

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