[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS update proposals
- From: Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:04:36 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Windows/20060909)
I agree with Mike. Transactions add a lot of implementation complexity,
and I thought our previous consensus was that we would not require this
of all implementations. If we can somehow separate this into an optional
capability, that would be good. (I don't know if Mike meant the optional
part -- that's just my two cents.)
Michael McIntosh wrote:
On transactions ...
As a general principal, I don't want to pay the overhead of certain
functionality in Higgins, but I want to make sure its possible/practical
to add it to derived products. So load balancing/clustering, real audit,
real access control, real transactions all need to be supportable in
derived products - but don't need to be fully supported in the reference
implementation. We do however, need to put the plug points into the
reference implementation so these enterprise level capabilities can be
added without modifying existing code.
In the case of transactions, we'd likely want multiple operations to be
part of the same transaction. For instance, an update that crosses
multiple contexts, or one that must be audited should include the commit
of an associated audit record.
So I think we should consider separating the Transaction into its own
interface, which can be passed into various update methods. I know this
introduces a lot of complexity, and I would not want to add it until we've
discussed it at length (probably a f2f agenda item), but its something we
need to consider.
higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/13/2007 07:51:10 PM: