Timeline for why are transaction monitors on decline? or are they?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2012 at 15:00 | history | edited | vartec |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 | answer | added | vartec | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 4, 2012 at 8:40 | answer | added | James Anderson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 26, 2012 at 20:34 | comment | added | wkl | I think it has something more to do with CICS and Tuxedo being expensive. In Java there are JTA implementations already, and application servers implement transaction manager/coordinator functionality. For the newish NoSQL databases, some like Neo4J have transactional capabilities compatible with JTA, while other NoSQL systems have finer grained update mechanisms (like single row locks) but may not have traditional transaction functionality like you get with an RDBMS. | |
| Mar 26, 2012 at 15:50 | comment | added | maple_shaft♦ | Doesn't really have to do with Erlang or Haskell, but Microsoft has already solved this problem with MSDTC so that pretty much universally solves the transaction problem on the MS stack. | |
| Mar 26, 2012 at 15:38 | history | asked | mrkafk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |