Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy...

[Bill Lance]

Hi Chris,

I would suggest that we NOT hold up a working GW
foundation to add transaction processing right now. As
I understand the issue, there are several approaches
to dealing with transactions, and at this time we are
still not clear on just what will and will not need
transactions, and at what level of verification.  But
we can't begin to start the application coding until
we have a working GW foundation. 

We can flesh out the detail as we refine the
prototype. But we do need to start the prototype code.

--- Chris Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> If I do put transaction support in, then I'll have
> to do it properly, which 
> will mean *buying* the XOpen XA Transaction
> Processing specification (about 
> $200 I think).
> 
> This is the same spec that Oracle, Tuxedo etc comply
> with (oracle's 
> Transaction Manager will link with Tuxedo's as they
> share the same API, which 
> allows Tuxedo to control Oracle's transactions). 
> I'll have to do the same 
> really, but it's not trivial!
> 
> In the short term we can create a stub API for the
> TP stuff, and some test 
> harnesses to generate Rollback TP events so we can
> make sure that out TP 
> complient application code behaves properly.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com