Guy Pardon of Atomikos justifies his use of "UNKNOWN" saying: anonymous wrote : | I think the status cannot be determined for the following reason. Imagine transaction A started in a remote VM and imported in the local VM subsequently. Also, suppose the local VM only does READ_ONLY work. | | Then, image two-phase commit: | | case 1: | -transaction A prepares | -the local VM returns READ_ONLY for all its work | -transaction A commits | | case 2: | -transaction A prepares | -the local VM returns READ_ONLY | -transaction A rolls back | | Both cases are indistinguishable by the semantics of the READ_ONLY on prepare: no further outcome is desired. | | IMHO, therefore the only state that makes sense is UNKNOWN. It would be a mistake to say COMMITTED, and likewise for ROLLEDBACK. | | Guy |
Guy has later said that perhaps he could use "NO TRANSACTION" in such a situation as well, however, it appears the JBossCache 1.4.x code will behave the same for NO_TRANSACTION as it does for "UNKNOWN". Thoughts? Here is the thread on the Atomikos forum. http://www.atomikos-support.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1314 Mike View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4131917#4131917 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4131917 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
