Handling Transactions Between .NET Components Ken Spencer Q. I read your column in the February 2002 issue of MSDNŽ Magazine regarding COM+, DCOM, and MSMQ serialization in .NET. You said that if a component is performing transactions on a single database and you expect that you'll always be going against only one database, then you don't necessarily need COM+ to implement those transactions; instead, you can implement them with ADO.NET. This seems to be a big change in philosophy. Could you give me more information ...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/05/Basics/Basics0205.asp Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rui Dias > Quintino > Sent: 15 May 2002 15:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier > > > Hi there, > > This is really one of the best lists for .Net, thanks everyone for all the > usefull tips I've been reading the last few days. But I've a > question about > this one. If we don't need distributed transactions, even if you have just > one SQL Server database, and we choose not to use COM+ services how can we > solve the problem of needing to span one transaction across > multiple method > calls (different classes/methods)? > > We can code all the transaction in one method, calling sucessive stored > procedures against the same transaction reference but when we > have dozens of > classes and transactional methods this can lead to a lot of repeated, and > non modular, code (calling the same SP across multiple methods). We'll end > up with no business layer at all. How to solve these issue when developing > large enterprise applications? > > I read a great article (at CodeProject I think) on how to > implement context > aware transactional objects without COM+/DTC overhead, but it > needs a lot of > testing to be safe to use in critical and large applications. > > I'm probably missing some points here. What do you think? > > > Rui Quintino > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Foreman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: quarta-feira, 15 de Maio de 2002 13:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier > > > --- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re 1: you also can NOT assume you will not at any point in the future > > HAVE to coordinate a transaction with a different component. So you have > > to be prepared. > > That's exactly right, you can not assume either way, which is why jumping > into a design decision > like 'always use COM+' makes no sense. You should therefore > judge on a case > by case basis. > > > Re 2: WebServices will - once they start supporting transactions - also > > be integrated with serviced components, or? This is a non-issue - right > > now this is manual transaction coordination, which, btw, can be done :-) > > So you agree that, at the moment, COM+ is no solution for this case? :-) > > Peter > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com > > You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from > Advanced DOTNET, or > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > > You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, > unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
