WS-Transaction isn't restricted to standard 2PC as a protocol. For example, there is a "business activity" subspec that supports a point in time failure model with compensation.
--- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are many ways to maintain transactional integrity. Using distributed > 2PC transactions is rarely the only option that works. And using distributed > 2PC with loosely coupled connections is generally a bad idea. > > Anne > > On 12/24/06, Jim Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes, but having implemented SOA in several different organizations I > > would say that at best we're talking 20% outside of the company and > > for the 80% of SOA integrating ERP's with HRMS's, etc., transaction > > support is critical contrary to what the other poster was claiming. > > > > --- In [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Anil John" > > > > <aniltj@> wrote: > > > > > > Public? Intranet? At a high level, you are dealing with ownership > > > boundaries. Depending on the culture of the Enterprise in question, > > > those ownership boundaries may very well be Business Units within the > > > Company. In another one it could very well be another Company. The > > > issues of governance, motivators/de-motivators, control would be very > > > similar in both entities. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > - Anil > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>On Behalf Of Jim > > > Thomas > > > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 10:32 AM > > > To: [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: The end of SOAP > > > > > > You should check the topic of this group, the significant majority of > > > SOA web services won't be public but used within an intranet. > > > > > > --- In [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>, > > Paul Downey > > > <paul.downey@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Dec 2006, at 16:10, Jim Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > Section 4.5 of WS-Addressing, Endpoint Unavailable would provide an > > > > > interface to implementation of that capability. > > > > it would if anyone could agree what that means or planned to implement > > > > > > > it. As it was it narrowly escaped being pulled following lack of > > > > demonstrable support during CR. > > > > > > > > > If a transaction > > > > > context existed, there are also some items within WS-Transaction > > > > > that would apply. > > > > right, I wonder how many people are building public Web services which > > > > > > > use Transactions. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://blog.whatfettle.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
