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 <lothaar77-t...@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
