[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1874?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

gengshaoguang updated TUSCANY-1874:
-----------------------------------

    Attachment: diff.txt
                ConcurrentXAResourceTestCase.java

Thanks Raymond:

This testcase addresses concurrent reliablity of the policy-transaction.

First result illustrated the TransactionLog instance in the 
TransactionModuleActivator has a small problem:
Multi TransactionManager instance can not allocate same lock on the same file.

So to make the test work, replace this instance with UnrecoverableLog, as shown 
in the diff.txt.

I have a suggestion about the TransactionModuleActivator, the 
getTransactionManager method returns multi instances with null input, but with 
an ExtensionPointRegistry, it will return the same TransactionManager, which 
will cause concurrent problem.

> An outbound jms XA testcase run under policy-transaction
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TUSCANY-1874
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1874
>             Project: Tuscany
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Java SCA Core Runtime
>    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-Next
>         Environment: svn trunk activemq tuscnay::policy-transaciton
>            Reporter: gengshaoguang
>            Assignee: Raymond Feng
>         Attachments: ConcurrentXAResourceTestCase.java, DerbyTestCase.java, 
> diff.txt, OutboundJmsTestCase.java
>
>
> Hello, every one:
> I created a TestCase address out-bound jms managed by TransactionManager of 
> the current policy-transaction module.
> I would like to expand this test case to a manageable remote ws referencing 
> over jms.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to