FWIW, I agree 100% with you on this marc
david jencks
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 05:34 PM, marc fleury wrote:
In all of the other application servers I have been working on
TransactionManager.resume() and suspend() are expensive operations,
since the JTA spec version 1.0.1 (section 3.2.3) requires the TM to
delist/enlist every resource that takes part in the
transaction, which
is costly. If it is done differently in Jboss on purpose,
IT IS A BUG IN THE SPEC !!!!!
I am dead serious. Also all the discussion sucks and comes from the
name of the API. Suspend() and resume() look like they are Tx lifecycle
operations which require resource delisting??? NO NO NO, resume and
suspend in the scope of what we do in the method is PURELY THREAD
ASSOCIATION, the TX goes on.
In our code it means "resume association" "suspend association" not
"suspend TX".
I had called it "dissassociateThread()" and "associateThread()" to
<emph> the fact that all we are looking for is "association of thread
to
TX" and THAT'S IT. It was changed in subsequent impls. You are
talking about something else, you are talking about the notion of
"suspending THE TRANSACTION".
Do we have a line?
marcf
"Doesn't anyone else see this?
I feel like I am taking crazy pills"
-- ZooLander --
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
