Comment Feed for Screencast - Transactional NTFS and WCF (Developer Meet Server on Channel 9)

Re: Developer, Meet Server #2 - Transactional NTFS and WCF

Yankee — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:21:37 GMT

Same problem here :(

Re: Developer, Meet Server #2 - Transactional NTFS and WCF

Acerty31 — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:53:25 GMT

Hi,

did you solve this problem? I meet exactly the same thing on my project. And your source have still this problem.

Thanks for your help

Fred

Re: Developer, Meet Server #2 - Transactional NTFS and WCF

wjansoone — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:29:21 GMT

Hi Jason,

When I test the TxF/WCF demo on the Longhorn Dec CTP I get following error during the method 'CreateFileTransacted' :
===============
The Transaction object already has a superior enlistment, and the caller attempted an operation that would have created a new superior. Only a single superior enlistment is allow.
===============

Win32Error : 6709.

Any idea what I should do to get the demo working?

Thanks in advance.

W.

Re: Developer, Meet Server #2 - Transactional NTFS and WCF

Jason Olson — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:18:03 GMT

Thanks for the comment Andrew! I had mistakenly stated that during two-way communication (and, hence, a two-phase protocol) that AutoComplete simply voted back to the client that it's okay to commit.

I went ahead and tested it without it and you are right, it is not necessary. So, thanks for pointing that out :). I will look at updating the samples and the screencast.

Re: Developer, Meet Server #2 - Transactional NTFS and WCF

AndrewDotHay — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:56:15 GMT

Nice! I have a question about an attribute on this service.

It was marked with the auto-complete attribute that votes to commit the transation if no exceptions occur. What effect does that have in this case?

The client has to issue the commit in this scenario. Is the work performed by the service still uncommitted at the period of time "after the service method completes and before the commit button is clicked"? I suspect yes, so why have that attribute on the method? Is it just to play nice in case this service is invoked by a different type of client?