AJ this approach doesn't work if you need synchronized access to a value to prevent, for example, the lost update problem. Unless you synchronize access to something like bank balance transfers, you will quickly destroy your data
On 22 June 2011 23:34, AJ <a...@dude.podzone.net> wrote: > I think Sasha's idea is worth studying more. Here is a supporting read > referenced in the O'Reilly Cassandra book that talks about alternatives to > 2-phase commit and synchronous transactions: > > http://www.eaipatterns.com/**ramblings/18_starbucks.html<http://www.eaipatterns.com/ramblings/18_starbucks.html> > > If it can be done without locks and the business can handle a rare > incomplete transaction, then this might be acceptable. > > > > On 6/22/2011 9:14 AM, Sasha Dolgy wrote: > >> I would still maintain a record of the transaction ... so that I can >> do analysis post to determine if/when problems occurred ... >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Trevor Smith<tre...@knewton.com> wrote: >> >>> Sasha, >>> How would you deal with a transfer between accounts in which only one >>> half >>> of the operation was successfully completed? >>> Thank you. >>> Trevor >>> >> >
