[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq
alexis.richardson at cohesiveft.com
Mon Jan 5 16:53:55 GMT 2009
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Only if the spec says that it should be, which it doesn't.
> that is ridiculous.
The spec could always be improved - please suggest language to prevent
interpretations that you consider to be ridiculous.
> I don't know of any transaction impl that is not
Well there is not one 'ACID' and there is not one 'transaction'
definition or impl, which is why there are so many long and beardy
books about the subject.
I would argue that eventual conistency (Dynamo, SimpleDB) is not ACID
for some classes of observation - roughly speaking, where you are
willing to let processes observe the system from different points.
I would also argue that compensating transactions weaken ACIDity
significantly which is why WS-* has both WS-AtomicTransaction and the
'business transaction' stuff - see my link from an earlier email,
referencing Sanjiva's comment on TSS.
> if it is not ACID what is the point? Differentiating between 1PC
> (local) and 2PC is meaningful, but both are ACID, that is the point on a
> transaction. If the txn is not ACID, why not just acknowledge the
> message, there is to difference in the failure cases between a non ACID
> txn and an ack then.
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss