Distribution semantics: database consistency -- transactions
Wed, 9 Nov 1994 13:26:51 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 9 Nov 1994, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> So we need recovery mechanisms.
> In any case, that means our object semantics *must* include failures
> as standardly supported states.
Devils Advocate: But why? In the real world when you send something off
you sometimes don't care if it comes back. Now lets say the mechanism
for automatically managing failures of remote happenings is relatively
"heavy". Should we give the programmer the option to specify whether that
failure should even be checked for, or insist the potentially uneeded
mechanism is in place.
Back to big issues. I mentioned an approach to programming before I
coined Organic Computing. Where things are not cast in stone at the
programming level. Ask the computer to do something, MAYBE it will
happen. You can augment that language with a library of primitives for
handling such circumstances. But maybe it's important for the programer
to be put in touch with a very indeterministic world out there.
Just an alternate view!