On Wed, June 20, 2007 18:18, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
>> As I understand, JMS does not have a concept
>> of transactions, probably also other solutions mentioned before,
>> so to use PgQ as backend for them should be much simpler...
>
> JMS certainly does have the concept of transactions. Both distributed
> ones through XA and two-phase commit, and local involving just one JMS
> provider. I don't know about others, but would be surprised if they
> didn't.
Wait... I thought XA did two-phase commit, and then there was XA+ for
*distributed* two-phase commit, which is much harder?
Jeroen
