2005/11/18, Joerg Heinicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Oliver Zeigermann <oliver.zeigermann <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > Hmmm. I do not understand you either. > > :) > > > I have certainly read the XA spec, but - of course - am not entirely sure > > that > > my implementation is free of errors. > > I did not know that it was you implementing it.
Does not matter too much who did the initial impementation... > > Active and suspended contexts are of course shared by the XA resource, > > why should it be local to a thread then? > > My problem is that the contexts are specific to an XAResource *instance*. But > is > it not possible to have more than one instance accessing one resource manager No. I do not think so. > from one thread? This is what my example with the two components was about. If > you use JNDI (standard in EJB 2.x) for looking up your XAResource you get a > new > instance of XAResource for each lookup, so one for both components. This is > why > I think the contexts must be made known to the thread (hence ThreadLocal), not > only to the instance. Hmmm. At least I understand what you are saying now. If there were more than one instance per thread a thread local still would not work, as the data has to be shared by all participants of the transactions, i.e. threads. But even more, may understanding is that the user will never see an XAResource and will never try to get an instance of it. It simply is an interface between the transaction manager of your container and your resource manager. Oliver --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
