doing it the right way.
Good luck making modifications to your 3000 "coarse grained services" when
you need to add a single parameter across all of them when you could have
wrote 6 fined grained services and integrated using distributed
transactions.
--
View this message in context:
On 07/21/2010 02:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
In general, most people that are familiar with it generally recommend
refactoring the services to avoid the need for the distributed transactions
entirely (coarser grained services work well). It generally simplifies
things quite a bit, but also helps
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 8:07:36 am Guy Pardon wrote:
> Hi Anto,
>
> You can try this: http://www.atomikos.com/Main/ExtremeTransactions
>
> It includes an independent WS-AT implementation (in beta) that should work
> in any JAXWS stack.
That's really interesting. Good to know about. I'd real
On Wednesday 21 July 2010 5:53:13 am Anto wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > WS-* stuff is always "on the roadmap", but whether they get implemented
> > or not
> > really depend on if someone steps up to do it (or if one of the companies
> > that
> > supports CXF has a paying customer that requires i
Hi,
> Just curious, why no paying customers are not demanding it?
We (Atomikos) had support for it in JAX-RPC days and now in JAX-WS precisely
because we experience demand.
> Is it that there
> are other ways to implement transactions other than WS-* specs? Or is it not
> a practical solution
ed in an application container which supports local transaction.
Thanks
Oliver
From: Sergey Beryozkin [sberyoz...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2010 13:30
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: WS-* specification for transaction
Hi Oliver
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010
Hi Oliver
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Oliver Wulff wrote:
> Hi Anto
>
> I know customers which use Web Services for about 9 years. They never had
> the requirement for WS-Transaction support because you could sort this out
> by the design of the service (WSDL) or they came to the conclusio
from an enterprise architecture point of view.
Thanks
Oliver
From: Anto [antopaul.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 July 2010 11:53
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: WS-* specification for transaction
Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> WS-* stuff is always &quo
On 07/20/2010 08:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 8:04:59 am Anto wrote:
Hi,
Is there any way to use WS-* specifications related to transaction with
CXF? Both client and server should take part in the transaction.
Not built into CXF itself right now, no.I think JBoss
On 07/21/2010 10:53 AM, Anto wrote:
Just curious, why no paying customers are not demanding it? Is it that there
are other ways to implement transactions other than WS-* specs? Or is it not
a practical solution for transaction management?
JBoss has had an XTS implementation for quite a few year
us, why no paying customers are not demanding it? Is it that there
are other ways to implement transactions other than WS-* specs? Or is it not
a practical solution for transaction management?
Anto
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/WS-specification-for-transaction-t
transaction with
CXF? Both client and server should take part in the transaction.
In CXF roadmap support for these specifications are included?
Anto
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/WS-specification-for-transaction-tp1618539p1618539.html
Sent from the cxf-user
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 8:04:59 am Anto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way to use WS-* specifications related to transaction with
> CXF? Both client and server should take part in the transaction.
Not built into CXF itself right now, no.I think JBoss had started some
work in this area as
-specification-for-transaction-tp1618539p1618539.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 matches
Mail list logo
