Re: Relationship between transactions and workflows

Proud Japanese wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are having some disagreement in our team about whether a workflow
> is composed of transactions (my view) or whether a transaction is
> composed of many workflows (team leader¢s view). Can anyone kindly
> comment on this issue? References to webresources and/or books will
> be welcome.
>
> Apologies in advance if this is OT.

In the context of an SQL DBMS the trite answer is that a transaction is anything you say it is. That is because only the programmer decides where it ends (by doing a COMMIT or ROLLBACK). I shall ignore the very knotty question of where the transaction begins...

A better answer is that a transaction should be designed so that it consists of a sufficient number of updates to put the database into a new consistent state. In my view it should be the minimum sufficient number of updates, but that may be an aesthetic preference of mine.

Because a workflow will in general cause the database to be put into a succession of consistent states, it seems to me that your team leader is incorrect. (I am going only on the basis of your description of his view though--which makes no sense at all, so it may be that you have misinterpreted his position.)

-- 
Roy