[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq
cctrieloff at redhat.com
Mon Jan 5 14:02:10 GMT 2009
Gordon Sim wrote:
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> RabbitMQ provides a correct implementation of the TX class which
>> enables work to be grouped. It is the TX class to which Gordon refers
>> in his email below. The problem is that the definition of TX is open
>> to *some* interpretation in edge cases, and is implemented slightly
>> differently by the various brokers. When we discussed the differences
>> in the working group we agreed that it would be more useful to clarify
>> how each 'correct' interpretation actually works for pre 1.0 specs,
>> pending AMQP 1.0.
> I referred to comments made about the atomicity guarantee in the
> RabbitMQ during discussions on clarifying the text of the TX class.
> My view has always been that the TX class implied atomicity (and the
> original author confirmed that was his intention), but the text of the
> 0-9 (and earlier) spec(s) did not make that explicit.
It would be good to note that the word 'transaction' implies ACID -
/Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability
Needing to specify ACID with the word transaction is redundant in my view.
I would go as far as to say, a transaction that is not Atomic is NOT a
transaction, but rather just some or other variation
of an acknowledgment pattern and should not be called a transaction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss