|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server General > January 2005 > Atomic vs Long Running Transactions
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Atomic vs Long Running Transactions
|
|
| Tareq Mohamed 2005-01-30, 5:50 pm |
| Hi,
would you please point to some artilces that compare between them and a
sample application which implements both of them,
Why atomic Transaction doesn't accept excption handling block ?
| |
| Hugo Rodger-Brown 2005-01-31, 7:47 am |
| There's a very good description of transactions in Scott Woodgate's book,
BizTalk Unleashed.
To quote from it "Such [atomic] transactions do not need exception handlers
.... because a fault will either result in a retry or an automatic rollback."
"Tareq Mohamed" <TareqMohamed@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57FCB2E8-7E25-49C3-8D57-9BFF87A00B2F@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> would you please point to some artilces that compare between them and a
> sample application which implements both of them,
>
> Why atomic Transaction doesn't accept excption handling block ?
| |
| Tareq Mohamed 2005-01-31, 5:53 pm |
| Oky, great, I have the book, and I will read this chapter again,
but, would you please point to some examples "code" implemenation for this?
"Hugo Rodger-Brown" wrote:
> There's a very good description of transactions in Scott Woodgate's book,
> BizTalk Unleashed.
>
> To quote from it "Such [atomic] transactions do not need exception handlers
> .... because a fault will either result in a retry or an automatic rollback."
>
> "Tareq Mohamed" <TareqMohamed@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57FCB2E8-7E25-49C3-8D57-9BFF87A00B2F@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|