Re: Once again :-) Question on Transaction support

Hi Mike,
 
I believe this is a good candidate for another SoC (separation of concerns) aspects, as you said Transactable, TransactionEnabled or whatever makes more sense grammatically ;-)
 
This seems to be a competitive dis-advantage in front of other frameworks, which we may want to address.  We would need to be able to manage the transactions across many Resource Managers.  As you mentioned, this is something that Avalon/Fortress may already be providing and we only need a thin layer around it.
 
Who is our local expert on Avalon/Fortress ?  He/She may be able to shed some light on this.  Of course, we need to make sure that the transaction support would work in a distributed and clustered environment.
 
If there is no easy transaction support from underlying existing platform (which would be very surprising for me), there are a few Transaction Mangers in the open source world, like that used by JBoss, Object Web, etc.
 
I am not really aware of what Spring supports (I chose Keel over Spring ;-).  However, they do say that they manage transactions themselves and that is why they don't use an EJB container for that.  Therefore I assume that any POJO or popular persistence mechanism can participate on an active transaction.
 
I think it is not really rocket science to enable transaction management even in a keel clustered environment, given of course the already capable open source Transaction Managers.
 
Any way, I guess this will have to be done as an effort we all participate in, or we just wait for the one who really needs this (tichy, itchy)  ;-)
 
Thanks for the info, Carlos

Michael Nash <[email protected]> wrote:
Carlos:

On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 16:52, Carlos Cardenas wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> Thanks for your previous answers, most helpful :-)
> 
> now, is there any direct support for transactions in keel?

Well, at some levels yes. E.g. for persistence the API supports the
concept of a "transaction" (typically a database-level transaction).

But there is not general-purpose support for something like JTA, as most
other services (other than JDO and Persistence) are not transactional. 

OTOH, I seem to recall something about Avalon/Fortress-level transaction
support - and as Keel is built on top of that.... something to research
:-)

> I don't remember seeing this anywhere in the docos. Is there a
> transactable interface for components (entity and service components)
> ?
> 
> If not, is there any plans for this? I think spring do deal with
> transactions, can we piggy back on the concepts they use?

Is the way Spring does Transactions oriented around persistence, or
generic enough to become a lifecycle event in Fortress (for example).

I'm thinking something along the lines of a "TransactionEnabled"
interface (like LogEnabled), that might have the kind of generic
transaction hooks such as "begin()", "commit()", "rollback()".... Just
thinking out loud, though...

I'm all for not re-inventing any wheels :-)


> in any case, would keel transactions be able to participate in a J2EE
> (ejb) transaction ? I gues it's more like the other way around, since
> using ejb's in keel is just one of the options.

Certainly EJB's are an option, and EJBs called from Keel can participate
in a transaction.

HTH!

Mike

> 
> Please meknow.
> 
> Thanks, Carlos
> 

_______________________________________________
User mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.keelframework.org/listinfo.cgi/user-keelframework.org