[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Some comments on definition of operation/group and action
I'll try to compensate a bit!
Good. The reason I asked is that such a restriction was
mentioned on the last teleconference and I think it's too restrictive. If that
were the case then the distinction between operation and group becomes
meaningless since an operation could "fan out" internally to multiple
actions.
^^^
???
This is debatable since
distributed data sharing works in practice today. There are obviously issues
such as security and authentication that will need to be taken into account if
the data is shared over different domains, but just because one operation works
on machine A does not mean that operation on machine B cannot share data with
it. Pragmatically it may not be an issue that we want to tackle in the current
BTP timeframe though.
Agreed, and we have experience of using such techniques
in extended transaction environments with nested transactions: essentially a
nested transaction can setup recovery points that are
persisted.
As long as cancellation is an application
level thing that can encompass forward/backward/no recovery I don't have an
issue with this.
Yes, and this means that we should not have
a model that slaveishly invokes compensations if a failure occurs. This is not a
black-and-white decision that the infrastructure should take out of the hands of
the implementor/application.
Mark.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com) Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Phone +44 191 2064538 Fax +44 191 2064203 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC