Mark Baker wrote: > On 7/3/06, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> The only thing you don't get here is recovery. This scenario works >> fine as long as both updates succeed. If one of the updates fails, >> there's no way to automatically undo the other - at least not with >> HTTP. This is because HTTP doesn't have persistent sessions, which >> distributed transaction processing protocols rely upon to share >> transaction context. > > How very 80s of you, Eric. 8-) > > Providing a transactional context via a user session is just one way > to do it, and not a particularly good way for today's Internet scale > systems for very many reasons. But there's no reason why a > transactional context can't be provided within the confines of a > stateless messaging architecture. >
So can you please provide a sketch of how you'd recommend people solve this problem in the context of stateless messaging? Dan. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
