[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS update proposals
|
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.)
We can add setAutocommit(boolean) method to IContext interface with "no
transaction support" default mode, so user will be able to reject using of
commit() method.
In any case the latest update approach (usging UpdateOperation) was defined
to support transaction-similar update of DigitalSubject, but it is
cumbersome as for user as for context provider. Also it provides
transaction-similar update only for one DigitalSubject, so it is not
applicable when we want to safely move some attrribute from one Subject to
another, for example.
Thanks,
Sergey Lyakhov
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Byrd" <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions"
<higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS update proposals
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.)
...Greg
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.
Thanks,
Mike
higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/13/2007 07:51:10 PM:
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev