Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?

Re: Re: Re: Re: J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Dec 10, 2003 at 22:22 UTC ( #313901=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Re: Re: J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?
in thread J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?

Just curious -- have you ever actually written Java code to do the kind of thing you're talking about here (transactions across heterogenous systems), and if so, how difficult was it? One thing that occurs to me is that the high-end vendors who sell these database systems typically also sell some kind of two-phase commit option that will work across competitors systems, so that could be an option for systems built using Perl.
  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?
by eduardo (Curate) on Dec 12, 2003 at 23:42 UTC

    I have... across a mainframe / oracle / mssql boundry. It was not exactly the most fun thing in the world I've ever done, though I am reticent to admit (btw, I don't like java on a "personal preference" level), using Java did make it considerably easier. The mainframe vendor (IBM) already had a great many objects we could use to interface with MQ and CICS... Oracle behaved in an intelligent manner (they have too much invested in java to not at least *attempt* to behave in an intelligent manner), and the MSSQL work... actually, now that I think about it, someone else completely did that work :)

    i'm not saying that it's not likely and possible that if such a framework and series of libraries existed for perl, it wouldn't be equally suited. i just *personally* have no experience with perl on that level, nor have I successfully in my googling found a vendor (or preferably vendors) that provide a perl framework with such functionality. *sigh*, what a shame.

      If I had to do this in Perl, I would look at what the database vendors have to offer. Oracle and IBM both sell products for two-phase commit across multiple databases from different vendors. They also both implement the XA standard.

      Frankly, it doesn't sound that hard to build a very basic transaction monitor that would do two-phase commit across XA databases, probably tracking state with a local transaction-capable database like SQLite. The thing is, it's probably not worth the trouble to build it. There is just so little call for this sort of thing in real-world applications. Most companies are trying to do simpler things, like basic replication. When something comes along that could conceivably be done with two-phase commit, even the DBAs typically choose to go with something less safe but much simpler. I suspect the main customers for distributed transactions are the financial industry.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://313901]
[1nickt]: hippo no reason why not other than wanting to check an assumption :-)
[hippo]: For a self-contained application which can therefore ensure thread safety it seems like a sensible approach.
[choroba]: No, if there are no threads, then the user wants to use MCE. If there are threads, the user can choose.
[1nickt]: choroba Understood. I'm wondering about the logic in a cpanfile. If the perl doesn't support threads, it's easy: require MCE. If the perl does support threads, as you say the user has a choice, so require both? Or, assume that irrespective of the choide

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (13)
As of 2017-10-18 13:18 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    My fridge is mostly full of:

    Results (244 votes). Check out past polls.