[Registry-dev] Transaction support in the embedded registry

[Afkham Azeez]

Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I thought we had been refactoring so that we had a separation between 
> code that was standard across implementations and code that isn't. I'm 
> not convinced that we want to rewrite transactions code across every 
> backend when its going to be similar.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that we should be using our own transaction 
> interfaces instead of working with the existing JTA model.
> 
> The other question we need to think about is whether anyone will ever 
> need to interface the Registry into a wider 2-Phase Commit transaction - 
> for example, will someone ever need to update some resources in the 
> Registry AND update their own database in the same transaction. If the 
> answer is no, then the approach below will work. If the answer is yes, 
> then we should be using the standard JTA code which will do this for us. 
> I don't know the answer! My gut feeling is that this is an unlikely 
> scenario, but I think we should consider it before we go ahead.
> 
I think this is a valid scenario. e.g. WSAS can store some of the 
node-local data to its own DB while storing some common data in a remote 
registry. This may need to be done within a single transaction.


> Paul