Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> 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?
Well, I meant distributed as in one transaction manager, multiple
resource managers, all participating in a single atomic transaction. I
don't know what XA+ adds on top of that.
To be precise, being a Java-thing, JMS actually supports two-phase
commit through JTA (Java Transaction API), not XA. It's the same design
and interface, just defined as Java interfaces instead of at native
library level.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
