[jira] [Created] (AMQ-8187) ActiveMQ should support local transaction even in JTA mode

["Andreas Benneke (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

Andreas Benneke created AMQ-8187:
------------------------------------

             Summary: ActiveMQ should support local transaction even in JTA mode
                 Key: AMQ-8187
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-8187
             Project: ActiveMQ
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: XA
    Affects Versions: 5.16.1, 5.16.0
            Reporter: Andreas Benneke


When running a JTA environment it comes quite handy to not always having to blow up a full JTA transaction 
if you already know in advance, that a particular interaction does not require synchronization 
with other resources or interactions.

Until 5.15 ActiveMQ did support this, but the last changes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2659 broke this.

When you now try to interact with ActiveMQ in such a local transaction you get

 
{code:java}
javax.jms.JMSException: Session's XAResource has not been enlisted in a distributed transaction.
 at org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQXASession.doStartTransaction(ActiveMQXASession.java:101) 
{code}
This is perfectly correct when one want to enforce JTA transactions, but exactly not wanted for local transactions.

I am not sure, where the problem here is. Some thoughts:
 * Until 5.15 the {{ActiveMQXASession}} supported this by itself, but as of AMQ-2659 it does no longer.
 * With AMQ-2659 one could think that the intention of the change was to make {{ActiveMQXASession}} no longer work outside JTA transactions.
 * I am however not sure if the consequence was intended, that is now no longer working in local transactions as well.
 * The {{ActiveMQXASession}} is created by {{ActiveMQXAConnection.createSession}}, however the first parameter "transacted" is effectively ignored and a {{ActiveMQXASession}} is returned even if transacted is false.
 * {{createSession(false, ...)}} is exactly what the transaction managers do to start a session in a local transaction (e. g. see {{DualSessionWrapper.createNonXASession}} in Bitronix)
 * Or are the transaction managers doing something wrong here? If, how should sessions on such local transactions be initiated?

Please find a stripped down test case here https://github.com/abenneke/sandbox/tree/master/activemq-local-transactions.

It has tests using Bitronix and Atomikos to reproduce the given cases.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)