I'm currently using a custom saga persister that I'd be happy to share, but it uses NH and I doubt you want to make that a dependency of RSB. I found it was simple to write (5 minutes), simple to understand, and it just works. I didn't need *extreme* throughput, though, and I expect that's the case for the vast majority of projects, so my vote is +1 for a simple db persister. It's still going to be a hell of a lot more scalable than a traditional thread hungry ASP NET app.
-tyler On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > Right now I am working on the ESB parts of the port, and I am thinking hard > again about what should and shouldn't be in there.On the one hand, one of > the major reasons that I created RSB is that I wanted to make something that > is developer friendly and easy to get started. > On the other hand, there are some things where we do want to provide > extensibility and customization for the users. > For the most part, I think we managed to do that by using the container in > some clever ways, but with the DHT saga storage I think I really messed it > up. > It is complex, both to set it up and to make use of it and to understand > how it works. > I have tentatively removed it from the project. > I would like to provide a saga storage that is easy to use and fit the bill > for most of the operations that you need, without bringing undue burden for > the administrator or developer. > > Last week I had several discussions with Udi about that, and he pointed out > that the most commonly used and easiest to reason about is a locked saga > state. That is, during the execution of a transaction, the state of the saga > is locked. A common example would be using a DB to handle that while using > serializable transactions. > > I still want to enable the "let us just use this" mode, and I still want to > avoid dependencies on infrastructure that isn't xcopy deployable. > We can support this easily if we will utilize only the PHT. But that will > work for local mode only. We can make use of the DHT, but then we need to > provide a solution for farm wide locking. A lot of the design behind the DHT > is based on always on system, because I have a requirement to keep the > system going while nodes are coming and going. Locking is... interesting in > this scenario. I would love to hear options about that. > > Or, we could just provide a simple DB saga state and let the DB handle that > and clustering to handle fail over. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
