[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: interposition requirements
I think we're talking about the same thing. A
sub-participant may not be able to register with the root coordinator (and I
think the majority of the time won't want to). Typically only those web services
that the initiator talks to directly will register with the root
coordinator.
Agreed, and this is what I said in the last email.
However, (and perhaps there was a misunderstanding about what was discussed), I
was under the impression that all web service participants were going to be
forced to register with the root coordinator.
If people are saying that sending (for example) 1000
SOAP requests over the internet is more performant that 2, and 998 over a LAN
then I'd like to see some justification for this. Unless you can use a broadcast
medium, and even then it would have to be over something like dedicated ethernet
with more than 4 participants, then flattening the tree will not give you better
performance. What we're talking about is trading internet calls for intranet
calls whenever possible. Obviously there may be cases where sub-coordinators
talk to "locally" registered participants over exactly the same network as the
root coordinator would, but that's not always going to be the case.
Interposition has been used in many systems (not just transactions) for years,
and its used precisely because it typically improves
performance.
I heard that there was some attempt to justify this
root-registration policy on the grounds of removing a bottleneck from the
sub-coordinator? So, let's just get this straight: we're trading the perceived
bottleneck of the sub-coordinator for the definite bottleneck of the network?
Again, if someone's got some good figures showing that sending 1000 requests
from, say, NY to LA is less of a bottleneck than sending 2 messages I'd love to
see them.
Agreed. I'd like to see that sub-participants have to
register with sub-coordinators. As you say, there's the separation of
concerns issue, and definitely the performance/trust issue.
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