Re: Cross-application transactions in middleware systems

Judith <judith.retief_at_iname.com> wrote: :> In the web world, the name I always hear is 'BEA' when it comes to TP :> Monitors, so that might be your best bet.  

: Thanks, I'll try to get something to read on that.

Sadly, BEA also makes WebLogic, of which I was told today by a support engineer (after inquiring after some debugging): "We know it[WebLogic] has the capacity for logging, but we haven't found the directive to enable it yet." - anonymous to protect the victims. This from a group that's been working with WebLogic for 2-3 years. Gah! There are signs that a design is needlessly complex. This is one of them.

<snip>
: So the limit is not really on the middleware: you're just moving all the
: familiar transactioning logic one step up. The problem is the support that
: needs to be built into the third party applications to allow their
: rollback/committing/resource locking etc to be controlled from outside. The
: issue is to what extent the idea of 'transactions-are-larger-than-me' is
: supported both in database theory and in industry systems.

I had to play with Oracle's C network API to write some parts of a driver, and I think that there is a suprising amount of info that DBs make available, but aren't used very often.

: *sigh* - the more hype, the more apprehensive I get... :) Is there actually
: a way of addressing what we've been talking about with web-based protocols?

I understand each word, but not the connections you're trying to make.

: I've had a quick look at the RosettaNet documentation. It seems that the
: model does not attempt to provide transparency of service location, and
: does not provide a protocol for cross-application transactions. Do I
: understand correctly?

You'd know more about RosettaNet than I. Received on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 00:18:48 CEST