Create and deliver personalized experiences across digital properties at scale
Build engaging websites with intuitive web content management
Leverage a complete UI toolbox for web, mobile and desktop development
Build, protect and deploy apps across any platform and mobile device
Build mobile apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone
Rapidly develop, manage and deploy business apps, delivered as SaaS in the cloud
Automate UI, load and performance testing for web, desktop and mobile
Host, deploy and scale Node.js, Java and .NET Core apps on premise or in the cloud
Optimize data integration with high-performance connectivity
Automate decision processes with a no-code business rules engine
Globally scale websites with innovative content management and infrastructure approaches
Content-focused web and mobile solution for empowering marketers
Faster, tailored mobile experiences for any device and data source
UX and app modernization to powerfully navigate today's digital landscape
Fuel agility with ever-ready applications, built in the cloud
Tony Baer reported a recent IBM event where Steve Mills talked about how the next stage for SOA was to add ACID reliability and fault tolerance to it. Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?
If IBM really means ACID (as in formal database-type transactions), then maybe they need a bit of re-education. It's commonly agreed that ACID is not appropriate for a loosely coupled environment. Instead, guaranteed messaging and compensation are the appropriate means.
But, if Steve Mills didn't mean ACID - and just means "reliable", then I'm also confused because there are a lot of organizations doing this today. We have dozens of customers running high volume mission critical applications - where revenue depends on the reliability of their transactions... and they are doing this on SOA.
Now, I suspect that IBM isn't really planning on trying to run every application inside DB2 to get ACID properties (I suspect only Larry Ellison would propose a vision like that).
So, maybe, and this is just a thought, maybe what they mean is that when you stitch together 60+ CDs worth of different products and call it a "unified solution" (after all, they all have the same brand, so it must be a unified solution), it might not be the most robust approach. If this is the case, I applaud IBM's desire to reduce the complexity of their product lines... but let's not talk about this as a deficiency of SOA infrastructure.
View all posts from dan foody on the Progress blog. Connect with us about all things application development and deployment, data integration and digital business.
Copyright © 2016, Progress Software Corporation and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
All Rights Reserved.
Progress, Telerik, and certain product names used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. See Trademarks or appropriate markings.