XA-compliant - red rag to a bull that is.....can't keep my mouth shut.... XA and two-phase commit tend to go hand in hand and whilst that's certainly the current Jini spec it has some dark corners progress wise we might want to look at. This might entail some changes to the spec or at least some additional guidance.....
On the more general "review all services point" - yes, indeed. I'd go as far as asking the question "do we still need 'em all?". Less code, makes less maintenance, makes for more focus on other stuff. On 11 February 2011 08:44, Calum Shaw-Mackay <[email protected]>wrote: > As I recall, while the code was still at Sun, there were thoughts about > making Mahalo XA-compliant. > > And as more general comment, taking into account both comments on > Outrigger, and the TransactionManager, perhaps there should be an effort to > look at all the default services supplied with River, with a view to seeing > what the shortcomings are and addressing them in River, rather than showing > them as 'just an example of a Transaction Service, etc.', because in the > main, most users won't reimplement the standard services. > > --Calum > > On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:49, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > > > > > I'd personally have a great desire to have TransactionManager be a focus > of some effort to try and finish getting its behavior to be dependable and > consistent for a single process service. > >
