Hi Ido, [off topic for folks who are just interested in graphs, here be REST things]
> My question is Should I have a generic Transaction resource to allow atomic > changes to any resource in my service which represent data? No, I don't think so (unless you mean a transaction in the commercial sense). Instead I still think I should be able to interact with a "Transfer" resource which under the covers might (or might not) need some kind of coordination (similar to 2pc). If you want to go with that then I suggest both services simple broadcast the activities they considered completed (e.g. using an atom feed of events). This is a superior solution to that initially suggested by the (flawed IMHO) REST-* people. However I really think that hypermedia wins out here. Instead of a distributed 2 phase transaction, why not do this instead: 1. Client knows the source and destination account URIs 2. Client PUTs a transfer representation to a transfer resource related to the source account, that representation contains the URI of the destination account resource 3. The source account service now does a "single-phase" PUT to the destination resource. Any transactions are now under the covers, bounded by a single, repeatable, idempotent PUT. Sweet. Jim _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
