users@jms-spec.java.net

[jms-spec users] [jsr343-experts] Re: TCK test that the transacted and acknowledge mode parameters are ignored

From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:39:42 +0000

Section 13.3.5 of the EJB spec "Use of JMS APIs in Transactions" doesn't give any exceptions or say it only applies to a
particular kind of JMS provider. This sounds like yet another example where it doesn't appear to reflect actual usage.

The first thing I'd like to find out is whether there is anywhere else in the EJB or Java EE spec(s) which describe (or
allow) the use in a Java EE container of JMS resources which do not support JTA transactions. This may be a new use case
we need to define when clarifying the spec.

(I don't know whether there are any TCK tests for this: I'll ask)

Nigel

> This message failed once for me today....
>
>
>
>
> The ignore part applies to the JCA connection factory that is managed by the application server.
>
> On this case you used the regular connection factory meant to remote clients, which is not managed the same way, hence
> it was not under these boundaries.
>
>
> I believe there are TCK tests for this. In any case I remember this being ignored alright on JBoss..
>
>
> anyway, if you found an issue, just raise the JIRA and we will fix at Jboss, what would make it a bug on the
> implementation.
>
> Also, you've got a configuration issue I think when you didn't set XA at the connection factory.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Rüdiger zu Dohna <ruediger.dohna_at_1und1.de <mailto:ruediger.dohna_at_1und1.de>> wrote:
>
> Nigel,
>
> There's been a discussion over at the JBoss community as to why messages seem to just disappear, when transacted
> is set to true.
>
> https://community.jboss.org/thread/176509
>
> I think this is a bug, as 13.3.5 of the EJB 3.1 spec clearly says that these parameters should be ignored. But
> there obviously is no test in the TCK for that. It can't be in the JMS-TCK but should be in the EJB-TCK.
>
> Do you agree that this should be tested?
>
>
> Regards
> Rüdiger
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com