It is definitely scope creep to address Jonathan's point so may eventually have to end up in a separate JIRA. However, it's worth discussing here. I'll mention that for BTP and WS-CAF, we allowed additional semantics to be provided by the participant to the coordinator upon registration, such as "if you don't hear from me by time T then I will have rolled back". Not suggesting we follow 1:1 but there is a body of work that covers something like this which others may find interesting for this discussion.
Mark.
On 3 Sep 2013, at 22:45, Paul Parkinson wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We had some email discussion about this in the past as well but I think the key points are captured in the JIRA https://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-4 and so I'm starting this clean thread.
>
> This is where I see we are now with open issues of functionality and implementation…
>
> Functionality: Ordering is the crux of the feature, however, the extent and particulars of the ordering need to be determined and include:
>
> - John Halliday's comment "At the risk of scope creep I'd welcome some discussion of more general approaches to communicating resource semantics, such that we can do variations on Last Resource Commit Optimization / Logging Last Resource, parallel prepare, etc"
> - Perhaps related to this point I think we need to spec out aspects such as the precedence if more than one resource that is to be ordered first (or last) is enlisted in a given transaction, etc.
>
> Implementation: How the functionality is provided by the application server and used by the application:
>
> - XAResource extension
> - Annotation
> - resource-reference extension
>
> Discuss… ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Paul
---
Mark Little
mlittle_at_redhat.com
JBoss, by Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).