[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

[Carl Trieloff]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_processing

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.

Carl.


/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20090105/82afa816/attachment.htm