RE: framework question

["Raikov, Leonid" <RaikovL1@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Like anything else, commitment control is a tool.  It can be used and
it
can be misused.  It has some places where it is good, and other places
where it is not.  In the broad world of DB2/400-based business
applications, it has been my experience that commitment control is
nearly always overkill.

Joe

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. The problem is not the
HW or DB2 reliability; the problem is that of your proper application.
Of course, it very much depends on the scale of this application - if
your business accepts just 10 transactions per day, CC is a non-issue.
But if you're a true retail shop, some of the transactions will fail
from time to time. Why? Because in the ever changing SW environment
things are bound to go wrong. No in-house CC is a replacement for the
IBM CC in case your RPG dumps. Leaving partially committed transactions
in the database is no disaster, but it's a nuisance. 

In HA scenarios journaling is a must and, therefore, in performance
terms you're better off with CC than without it.

Generally, in this discussion I'm on your side, but it looks like you're
overdoing it, if only a little. More importantly, however, you have not
really answered my question; you just offered your opinion.


Lo