synapse-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Fremantle" <>
Subject Re: JTA support in Synapse: general question
Date Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:21:07 GMT

The lightweight transaction managers are definitely good. I personally
like Atomikos, but I'm happy to consider any alternatives. Do you have
experience with any?


On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andreas Veithen
<> wrote:
> Sanjiva,
> The example was just meant to illustrate my point and probably there
> are better examples. I just wanted to trigger a discussion about the
> direction in which we are going. I agree with the approach outlined by
> Paul and I think Asankha gave some very valuable information that we
> need to take into account if we want to build higher level transaction
> support later.
> My next question is what would be the recommendation to have
> distributed transaction support (e.g. between JMS and a database) in a
> Synapse stand-alone installation. Is there some lightweight Open
> Source transaction manager that one can use (to avoid the burden of
> installing a full-featured application server)? I'm thinking about
> something as Jencks or JOTM.
> Andreas
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:29, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> <> wrote:
>> Andreas Veithen wrote:
>>> Asankha,
>>> Let me explain my concern using an example. Imagine that the use case
>>> is a JMS request-response proxy service and that the requirement is to
>>> consume the request and to produce the response in a single
>>> transaction (to guarantee that either there is a response or the
>>> request remains on the queue). Also imagine that the target endpoint
>>> uses HTTP. If the non blocking transport is used, then the request and
>>> response processing will not happen in the same thread, right? This
>>> means that at some point the transaction needs to be detached from the
>>> thread processing the request and resumed in the thread processing the
>>> response. Who is responsible for doing this and how would such a proxy
>>> definition look like in Synapse?
>> Andreas, given the transaction does not flow over the HTTP connection,
>> what's the point of wrapping the HTTP request/response within a transaction?
>> There's no way to abort the tx for example.
>> In effect the HTTP interaction has to occur outside the tx right? At that
>> point, what is the point of putting what happens after the HTTP response in
>> the same TX as the original one because basically you've lost the semantic
>> anyway.
>> I'm prolly getting this wrong .. thanks for your patience in answering it!
>> Sanjiva.
>> --
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
>> Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation;
>> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.;
>> Member; Apache Software Foundation;
>> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa;
>> Blog:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair


"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform",

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message