Re 1: being prepared demands transaction support. How do you judge a black box component used by a number of customers on the same code basis on a "case by case basis"?
Re 2: well, the problem here is not integration - perdefinition WebServices have no transaction semantics. They are working on this. There is simply no integration there because this was not seen as something necessary. BUT - once the WebServices SOAP Protocol has transaction semantics I am very sure MS will map this to a ServicedComponent (COM+) transaction. Regards Thomas Tomiczek THONA Consulting Ltd. (Microsoft MVP C#/.NET) -----Original Message----- From: Peter Foreman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Mittwoch, 15. Mai 2002 14:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Help Architecting A Middle Tier --- Thomas Tomiczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re 1: you also can NOT assume you will not at any point in the future > HAVE to coordinate a transaction with a different component. So you have > to be prepared. That's exactly right, you can not assume either way, which is why jumping into a design decision like 'always use COM+' makes no sense. You should therefore judge on a case by case basis. > Re 2: WebServices will - once they start supporting transactions - also > be integrated with serviced components, or? This is a non-issue - right > now this is manual transaction coordination, which, btw, can be done :-) So you agree that, at the moment, COM+ is no solution for this case? :-) Peter __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
