Re: Commiting Messages with Local Transaction (not XA)

[David Newcomb <da...@bigsoft.co.uk>]

There's quite a good article here, written by David Syer.

Distributed transactions in Spring, with and without XA
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-2009/jw-01-spring-transactions.html

It's a little Spring orientation but answers all your questions.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 Adam Brod <lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Hi-
>
> I am working on a system where we want to send a message each time an entity
> is updated.  I really want to commit the message to the broker using a local
> transaction - I can't use XA.  If the local transaction rolls back and the
> entity isn't committed, then I don't want the message to be sent.  If the
> local transaction commits I want to guarantee that the message is put on a
> Queue.
>
> I was thinking that perhaps if I use an embedded broker and some form of
> JDBC Persistence Store, I could configure the embedded broker to use the
> same DB connection (and JDBC transaction) as the rest of the application.
> Is this possible?
>
> This will be relatively low-volume, so I'm not too concerned about
> throughput and latency.  I'm more interested in ensuring transactional
> integrity without XA transactions.
>
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions or tips.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam
> --
> View this message in context:   
> http://www.nabble.com/Commiting-Messages-with-Local-Transaction-%28not-XA%29-tp25151371p25151371.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>



Regards,
David
---------------------------------------
Managing Director
+44 (0) 7866 262 398
BigSoft Limited
Reading, UK
http://www.bigsoft.co.uk/
Registered in Cardiff, Wales 3960621