- Re: Transactions 2007-07-11 - By manik.surtani@(protected)
Back
Using a distributed TM may work and is worth trying out, as I'd imagine this is
the "correct" approach, provided C is configured with a
TransactionManagerLookup that knows how to get a handle on the distributed TM.
A simpler approach may be not to use a custom API to communicate between A and
C at all, but instead do do something like this:
Let B be another cache instance, which runs in the same JVM as A. A always
talks to B, never directly to C. So this way transactional scope is maintained
regardless of which TM you use.
Now B can be tuned with an aggressive eviction policy so it does not maintain
much state at all in memory so it doesn't impact the machine very much. B is
also configured with a TcpCacheLoader pointing at C. C runs with a
TcpCacheServer, which acts as a backing cache to B. So all the cache state is
really held in C, but B acts as the API front end for interacting with the
cache.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic
&p=4062937#4062937
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode
=reply&p=4062937
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@(protected)
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
|
|
