[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at cohesiveft.com
Wed Jan 7 12:38:41 GMT 2009


On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Tim Coote <tim+rabbitmq.com at coote.org> wrote:
> For the type of problem that I outline, I think that the best approach
> is to wrap the messaging plumbing as a transactional interface. My
> reasoning is that I want cheap coders to write my apps and I don't
> want them experimenting with asynchronous models in my business
> applications :-)  If I cannot get application level transactional
> semantics from a Service, I'd argue that the Service should be in
> constant review if it's in my SOA, as a prime intent of SOA is to
> reduce the ownership costs of applications.

I think this is why 'ESBs' have been successful - they wrap the async
plumbing (needed for scalable integration) behind a sync facade that
joe developer sees as 'request response'.  Then the transaction model
- whether more local TX style or full-on DTX style - can be set as a
configuration choice.  (If you do your ESB right...)

In my own view, distributed transactions are to be avoided whenever
possible.  But providing simple tools to enable that in practice, can
be a challenge.


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list