Re: [DotGNU]transaction logging and roll-back

[fitzix]

Myrddian wrote:
> 
> Ok, this might sound cheap but why dont we attempt to make transactions 
> atomic?
> I was thinking of a Journaling solutions (akin to that of Journaling File 
> Systems)
> Each transaction has a unique ID, now for some odd reason the transaction is 
> not
> fulfilled, because its stored in a log and marked active the server will 
> re-try
> to fulfill this transaction, until it's sucesfull (ie: it got a reply)
> 
> This means that replies from server-server can be considered a transaction,
> it also means it becomes easy to update tranasctions, not to mention
> implement roll-backs a lot easier.
> 
> __________________________________________
> Myrddian <address@hidden(nospam)au>


Sounds like a transaction queue to me...

I like it... It's definitely sound (and it keeps all transactions in
line, so that one transaction doesn't get kept for last)...

Perhaps, to minimize network traffic, we should consider putting a batch
transaction processing mechanism into the servers.  This should be set
by the admin (and we should consider building tests and making
recommendations based on those tests in the interface) but it should
keep the system from becoming a performance mess on troubled networks...