On 6/20/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> 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.
Ah, sorry, my mistake then. Shouldn't trust hearsay :)
--
marko
