You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> on 2007/01/12 01:55:43 UTC
Use JTA 1.1?
Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right now. It
appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and startup
fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
Anyone know if any problems will show up if we switch to the JTA 1.1
spec? Or maybe there is a little work (hopefully not a lot) that
needs to be done in G to sync up the codebase for 1.1?
--jason
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Aight... this is done.
--jason
On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
>>
>> Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right now.
>> It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and startup
>> fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
>>
>> Anyone know if any problems will show up if we switch to the JTA
>> 1.1 spec? Or maybe there is a little work (hopefully not a lot)
>> that needs to be done in G to sync up the codebase for 1.1?
>
> Should be fine. There's just an additional interface in JTA 1.1.
>
> -David
>
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:44 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> We don't anymore, but we did/do for 1.2.x as we can't certify on
>>> J2EE 1.4 with the jta 1.1 library in the path.
>>
>> Okay, I think we should merge geronimo-transaction-jta11 into
>> geronimo-transaction-jta for server/trunk then.
>
> OK
> The original motivation was to reuse the 1.0.1 code in the 1.1 tm
> without 2 copies of the code. In the 2.0 work this is no longer
> necessary.
>
> This may mean that 2.0 won't expose a 1.0.1 compatible tm, forcing
> e.g. jencks to go to 1.1. I doubt this would be a problem.
IMO, unless we really need to, we should not attempt to support
legacy versions... its too much work and will add unneeded complexity.
--jason
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:32 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>>> Do you (or anyone else) know why we have a geronimo-transaction
>>> and geronimo-transaction-jta11 module?
>>>
>>> Why do we need 2 modules for this?
>>
>> We don't anymore, but we did/do for 1.2.x as we can't certify on
>> J2EE 1.4 with the jta 1.1 library in the path.
>
> Okay, I think we should merge geronimo-transaction-jta11 into
> geronimo-transaction-jta for server/trunk then.
OK
The original motivation was to reuse the 1.0.1 code in the 1.1 tm
without 2 copies of the code. In the 2.0 work this is no longer
necessary.
This may mean that 2.0 won't expose a 1.0.1 compatible tm, forcing
e.g. jencks to go to 1.1. I doubt this would be a problem.
thanks
david jencks
>
> --jason
>
>
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:32 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>> Do you (or anyone else) know why we have a geronimo-transaction
>> and geronimo-transaction-jta11 module?
>>
>> Why do we need 2 modules for this?
>
> We don't anymore, but we did/do for 1.2.x as we can't certify on
> J2EE 1.4 with the jta 1.1 library in the path.
Okay, I think we should merge geronimo-transaction-jta11 into
geronimo-transaction-jta for server/trunk then.
--jason
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 11, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Do you (or anyone else) know why we have a geronimo-transaction and
> geronimo-transaction-jta11 module?
>
> Why do we need 2 modules for this?
We don't anymore, but we did/do for 1.2.x as we can't certify on J2EE
1.4 with the jta 1.1 library in the path.
-David
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
>>>
>>> Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right
>>> now. It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and
>>> startup fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
>>>
>>> Anyone know if any problems will show up if we switch to the JTA
>>> 1.1 spec? Or maybe there is a little work (hopefully not a lot)
>>> that needs to be done in G to sync up the codebase for 1.1?
>>
>> Should be fine. There's just an additional interface in JTA 1.1.
>>
>> -David
>>
>
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Do you (or anyone else) know why we have a geronimo-transaction and
geronimo-transaction-jta11 module?
Why do we need 2 modules for this?
--jason
On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
>>
>> Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right now.
>> It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and startup
>> fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
>>
>> Anyone know if any problems will show up if we switch to the JTA
>> 1.1 spec? Or maybe there is a little work (hopefully not a lot)
>> that needs to be done in G to sync up the codebase for 1.1?
>
> Should be fine. There's just an additional interface in JTA 1.1.
>
> -David
>
Re: Use JTA 1.1?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
>
> Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right now.
> It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and startup
> fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
>
> Anyone know if any problems will show up if we switch to the JTA
> 1.1 spec? Or maybe there is a little work (hopefully not a lot)
> that needs to be done in G to sync up the codebase for 1.1?
Should be fine. There's just an additional interface in JTA 1.1.
-David