Distribution semantics: database consistency -- transactions

Mike Prince mprince@crl.com
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!