No one is suggesting they should. But not all services are loosely coupled. It is correct that in SOA and Web services we emphasize the benefits of loose coupling, but there are still cases where 2PC is needed.
Eric --- Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1. > > 2PC transactions should not span loosely coupled > connections. > > Anne > > On 2/23/06, Logan, Patrick D > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From a different thread on mobile, etc.... > > > > "The Jini transaction spec basically leaves it up > to > > the participating objects whether or not to > enforce > > 2PC semantics. Again, this is fine as long as you > do > > not need to recover update operations against > multiple > > resource managers. While this provides greater > > flexibility for developers, it also introduces > > additional risk. This is a classic debate in the > TP > > industry - how much to leave to the programmer's > > control and how much to guarantee in the software > > system." > > > > I've generally considered SOA and 2PC to be > antithetical. i.e. I would > > want to isolate and/or bury 2PC. Many services > should be reliable but > > asynchronous. We need to enhance our understanding > and implementations > > of compensation. > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
