This content has been marked as final.
Show 52 replies
-
45. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
weston.price Apr 26, 2007 3:53 PM (in response to timfox)Can we have a call about this?
-
46. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
clebert.suconic Apr 26, 2007 5:31 PM (in response to timfox)I have talked to Weston...
if I used "jms-message-inflow-driven-bean" as the invoker for Standard Message Drive Bean on standardjboss.xml, the transaction was started before onMessage.
But I suggest we keep the if listener instanceof ServerSession. I have talked to Weston and he thinks that is pretty standard. As this will save the expected behavior on both invokers. -
47. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
timfox Apr 27, 2007 6:13 AM (in response to timfox)"clebert.suconic@jboss.com" wrote:
I have talked to Weston...
if I used "jms-message-inflow-driven-bean" as the invoker for Standard Message Drive Bean on standardjboss.xml, the transaction was started before onMessage.
Of course. This is what I was saying previously about how one of the main motivations for JCA 1.5 inflow was to remove this issue
But I suggest we keep the if listener instanceof ServerSession. I have talked to Weston and he thinks that is pretty standard. As this will save the expected behavior on both invokers.
Pretty standard in what way? This is an implementation detail AFAICT. -
48. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
timfox Apr 27, 2007 6:19 AM (in response to timfox)But if at least gives the desired behaviour when using JBoss that is ok for now.
-
49. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
clebert.suconic Apr 30, 2007 12:21 PM (in response to timfox)"timfox" wrote:
But if at least gives the desired behaviour when using JBoss that is ok for now.
Isn't SessionState.getDistinguishedListener only used for ASF?
Maybe a simple getDistinguishedListener()!=null would be enough instead of instanceof. -
50. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
timfox Apr 30, 2007 12:33 PM (in response to timfox)"clebert.suconic@jboss.com" wrote:
Isn't SessionState.getDistinguishedListener only used for ASF?
It's the only user AFAIK.
Maybe a simple getDistinguishedListener()!=null would be enough instead of instanceof.
Probably not, after all there's nothing stopping the user from just calling setListener() on the session. It would be pretty pointless but not illegal. -
51. Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB
clebert.suconic Apr 30, 2007 12:41 PM (in response to timfox)Probably not, after all there's nothing stopping the user from just calling setListener() on the session. It would be pretty pointless but not illegal.
The if would be only session.isXA() && distinguishedSesion!=null.
And that wouldn't invalidate any customer's usage. This would only assume the ACK will be done transactionally. I think this should be fine and better than instanceof then.