Fwiw, I just pushed to https://github.com/gnodet/org.ops4j.pax.transx a transaction api + 3 implementation bundles for Geronimo, Narayana and Atomikos. The API is designed to support Last-Resource-Commit (supported by Geronimo and Narayana) and recovery (supported by all 3 transaction managers). I'll work on more thorough testing in the coming days...
Guillaume 2017-06-20 16:49 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org>: > > On 20 Jun 2017, at 15:28, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org<mailto:gnod > e...@apache.org>> wrote: > > 2017-06-20 12:53 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org<mailto: > timothyjw...@apache.org>>: > > Hi Guillaume, > > The OSGi Alliance is an open organisation, and a number of OPS4j > developers are already members via their companies. There is absolutely > nothing preventing them from getting involved with the Alliance, nor > preventing any non-members from joining. > > On the other hand to maintain the openness of its standards the OSGi > Alliance must have a strict IP policy, one that prevents it from consuming > arbitrary code or IP from external sources. If OPS4j are able to get to a > compatible place contribution-wise then I'm sure you'd see a flow of work > in the other direction too. > > As for Aries Tx Control - a Narayana based XA implementation would be a > great addition, as would JMS support. > > > I agree, I may look at it in the future, but that would be easily based on > what I'm proposing here. Aries tx-control does not necessarily have to > host the pooling code, but rather the rfc 220 integration code imho. > > > > Wrapping the Geronimo transaction manager is deliberate for three reasons: > > * the javax.transaction package is toxic due to its split package in the > JRE. Hiding all of the JTA code allows the impl to work without system > packages being declared when launching the OSGi framework. > > > That’s not specific to the Geronimo TM afaik. > > This is not specific to the Geronimo TM, but it is a reason that wrapping > a TM is preferable to consuming one from another bundle. Wrapping lets the > JTA package usage be purely internal, and avoids the toxic class space > issues. > > > > > * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can offer last participant > support > > > I don't think that's true either. Geronimo TM itself offers no support for > enlisting local resources. What tx-control does is wrap local resources > with the LocalXAResourceImpl and just expect everything will be ok. The > TM should at list make sure that such wrapped local resources should be > called last in the prepare phase. Afaik, that's not the case with the > Geronimo TM. I think the current code should work as is with other TM, or > better of some can offer real support for this use case. > I think Narayana simply requires the XAResource to implement a specific > interface Last in order to be called last in the prepare phase and lessen > the possibilities of something bad happening. > > > The Aries TX control implementation wraps the resource and adds it to the > last place in the resource list. It does this safe in the knowledge that > Geronimo calls resources in a FIFO order when preparing. This is not > required to be true for other implementations (which may optimise their > calls in different ways), and so requires knowledge of the specific > implementation logic. Similarly, implementing a Narayana interface requires > you to know that the implementation will pay attention to the interface, > and cannot be done speculatively. > > > > * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can support XA recovery > > > Yes, it's really unfortunate that the JTA spec has not covered this part. > I'm wondering if we there's a place for a small project which would offer > an api and wrappers around existing TM so that they could be switched if > needed, and more importantly, so that code can access those non standard > features without dealing with the specifics. > I may try working on this part next, then maybe integrate both into > tx-control. > > I think that this would need to be custom per-provider, but a Narayana > implementation would definitely be useful. > > > > This model gives a great level of functionality in an easy to access way > for users, and I would be keen to keep this option. A pluggable model is > possible, but would need to be done carefully to ensure that scopes could > cope with external parties "messing with" the transaction. It would also > lose the benefits described above, although neither of these things mean > that it would not be worth adding as an alternative implementation. > > Finally - I am not sure why tx Control would have a dependency on pax jdbc > (other than as a source of DataSourceFactory services)? This sounds like it > would make the Aries project harder to configure and deploy, and I can't > immediately see what additional benefits it would provide. Can you clarify? > > > From a high level, pax-jdbc aims at providing DataSourceFactory while > tx-control aims at integrating those into the transaction api. So it could > make sense to layer them. I haven’t looked at the specifics though... > > I think that this layering already exists. Right now the Tx Control JDBC > and JPA providers expect to find and make use of a standard > DataSourceFactory service. > > Regards, > > Tim > > > Guillaume > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 20 Jun 2017, at 11:00, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org<mailto:gnod > e...@apache.org>> wrote: > > 2017-06-16 11:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Nicholson <puppy_wants_a_...@me.com< > mailto:puppy_wants_a_...@me.com>>: > > > Doesn’t this directly clash with OSGi Alliance Transaction Control > Specification work going on in Aries? > > If so, wouldn’t it make more sense for this community to input into that > work rather than cause needless confusion / fragmentation? > > > Just a thought. > > > Yeah, I'm a bit skeptic about the relationship between the OPS4j > community > and the OSGi Alliance work. It seems to always go in the same > direction... > i.e. the guys working at OPS4j should help working on the project defined > by the guys working at the OSGi Alliance. > > That being said, the work in Aries is about defining a new programming > model for transactions. That's something I'm not really interested in at > this point. In addition, my initial goal is to have support for JMS + > Narayana and both aspects are not covered. In particular, it does create > and wrap the geronimo TransactionManager instead of re-using an external > one (even the one defined in Aries Transaction for example). > > In theory, things should be layered. For example, pax-jdbc provides a > way > to expose DataSourceFactory objects in the OSGi registry. Imho, > pooling > should be done at this level, as specified in the DataSourceFactory > interface. So pooling inside aries-tx-control is irrelevant. > > This project is even at a lower level and I plan to integrate it below > pax-jdbc for the jdbc part. > > That said, I may have a look at aries-tx-control and see if I can replace > some of the code there to leverage pax-jdbc and pax-transx more to help > avoiding confusion and fragmentation. > > > > On 15 Jun 2017, at 13:55, Toni Menzel <toni.men...@rebaze.com<mailto: > toni.men...@rebaze.com>> wrote: > > Sounds interesting! > Two comments: > > - i find the whole space of "pooling resources" a not confusing and > hard > to find out what you actually really need. So, say once you know you > want > takaricp, which other bridges and matching configs do you need so that > the > DataSource proxy (for JDBC) appears in your Service Registry. Maybe > it's > just me not following bridge provider-projects like Aries too closely. > Anything that makes setup simpler and offers a wider range of options > is > highly welcome. (particularly in the OPS4J community, or how Bndtools > people say "P A X" ;) > - Any reason why this is not Pax Tx (org.ops4j.pax.tx) ?Find the > Transx a bit alien. just an idea. > > Thanks for your heads up, JB about karaf-boot. Was wondering what > happened > to it. > > Toni > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Achim Nierbeck < > bcanh...@googlemail.com<mailto:bcanh...@googlemail.com> > > wrote: > > Hi Guillaume, > > sounds like a good idea to me, and the pax space like the perfect eco > system :) > > regards, Achim > > 2017-06-15 10:20 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>: > > +1 > > It sounds like a good idea and definitely a good candidate for PAX. > > By the way, on my side, I did good progress on: > - karaf sample & new dev guide > - some new updates on karaf-boot > - ServiceMix APIMan for API/Service Discovery, Management, Gateway > But I will send an update in separate threads. > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/15/2017 09:57 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I began to work on a small project which aims at providing support > for > pooled XA-enabled connections for JDBC and JMS. > > For JDBC, the problem was already solved in pax-jdbc by using either > pax-jdbc-pool-aries when deploying the Aries/Geronimo transaction > manager, > and by using pax-jdbc-pool-narayana when using the Narayana > transaction > manager. > > However, there's absolutely no support for JMS. > > So what I've been doing is to reuse the geronimo JCA connector, make > it > independent on Geronimo TM and add support for Narayana, use a clone > of > the > old tranql adapter for JDBC and rewrite a new JMS 2.0 compatible > adapter > for JMS. > > It's not in a usable state yet, but I wanted to give an heads-up. > My plan is to make the pooling almost transparent in OSGi, and reuse > it > instead of the connection pooling I added to Karaf a few weeks ago > which > does not support XA or recovery: > https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/jms/pool > and maybe to plug it into pax-jdbc to replace pax-jdbc-pool-aries > and > pax-jdbc-pool-narayana. > > The source code is currently available at: > https://github.com/gnodet/org.ops4j.pax.transx > > > Cheers, > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > -- > > Apache Member > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > Committer & > Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> > Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> > > Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
