"Rickard �berg" wrote:
> Oleg Nitz wrote:
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > >> Sorry - I didn't keep the original thread. But someone was
> > >> discussing using more than one TM in jBoss (one per EJB JAR, or one per
> > >> container configuration?). Just wanted to mention that a change was made
> > >> a while back to make Minerva cache the TM, since the lookup was apparently
> > >> taking significant time. There are probably other places where that was
> > >> done too.
> > Castor also caches TM, for the same reason.
> >
> > Rickard �berg wrote:
> > R�> Good point. The configurability of TM's was put in there "just in case"
> > R�> and was not entirely thought through. I am leaning more and more towards
> > R�> not having it configurable, as the semantics would be a little to weird.
> >
> > R�> Anyone have good reasons to keep it? How to solve any potential problems
> > R�> between clashing TM's in one JVM? Anyone *see* the potential problems?
> > I vote for single TM per JVM.
> > I don't know any cases where multiple TMs per JVM are really needed,
> > and I believe that the price for such flexibility would be too high.
>
> I agree. If noone comes up with compelling reasons why several TM's
> would be good, then we switch and take out the TM configurability.
I think the cost of actually implementing access to multiple
TMs and make it work correct would be high.
And the advantages of multiple TMs are minor.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
