river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bug nominations
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:56:20 GMT
XA-compliant - red rag to a bull that is.....can't keep my mouth shut....

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.....

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.

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.

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