"Gregg_Saffell" wrote : That "it only points to bad design" has been posted before and isn't true. We have a distributed application that requires a record to be stored both locally and at a remote site. The redundant storage of the record allows both sites to do their thing even when they can't communicate. Should the two databases get out of sync, the app is compromised.
My point exactly. Why wouldn't two applications that can't communicate NOT get out of sync. And how are you going to recover them consistently when they can't communicate with each other? etc. I'm not going to go further down this road. Your application design is your problem. anonymous wrote : | Lastly, they have to communicate over https. | | The http invoker servlet is awesome by the way, really came in handy. That's the other piece the worries me though. I'm concerned that even if we do successfully integrate JOTM we'll then only learn that the invoker servlet doesn't propagte the transaction context. Do you know if it will or won't? | Why would JOTM/JTS which is CORBA know anything about HTTPS or JBoss's invokers other than RMI/IIOP? I think it is time you go back and re-read the specs and links that I gave you before, rather than using me as your search engine. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3887819#3887819 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3887819 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list JBoss-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
