I understand the need to use an XA transaction (sort of) to prevent the famous warning about local transactions when using database persistence for JMS. I also understand the inherent complexity of XA transactions on the database that leads to performance degredations.
What I don't get is why the JMS database persistence can not be configured to use the same physical connection (and tx) as the EJB container, eliminating the need for XA in the first place.
Yes, this may couple the JMS and EJB implementations in ways that are not optimal for all situations, but as a practical matter it would be a useful option for many applications.
Am I missing an obvious configuration in 3.2.1 to make this happen?
Is this idea totally misguided?
Is something like this being considered for 4.0?
You do not understand XA. See my other posts (many times) for an explanation
of how irrelevent the jbossmq persistence is to the issue.