Re: mod_perl advocacy project resurrection

[Matthew Kennedy]

Ged Haywood wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> This isn't a silly question.  At least I hope it isn't.
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> [snip,snip]
> > A modifies a row in X and adds a row to Y.  A commits X, which succeeds.
> > A commits Y, which fails.
> >
> > The only thing that Machine A can do now is send an email to the DBA
> >
> > "..." says the DBA,
> 
> Given that it's designed to fail sooner or later, are there good
> reasons why someone would put together a system in that way?

There's probably no reason one would _design_ a system like that per se.
However there are plenty of times it just _turns_out_ like that --
usually as the result of a system evolving through time. Another example
might be the B2B case of consulting your own DB etc. and then
communicating some change based on that to another organization's DB
system. I've seen that particular situation arrise many times.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]