April 10, 2008 0 Comments

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.

dan foody

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.

Read next Progress Acquires the Leading Provider of Backend-as-a-Service
Comments are disabled in preview mode.