Re: MVC Architecture and transactions

Joe Pluta wrote:

Buck, you're missing my point again! That order that you rolled back should
be posted with a timestamp that you fetched at the beginning the update, and
then the order would have a timestamp prior to the update of the master
file.

That's the header, not the detail.

It just seems to me that you've unnecessarily convoluted this.

CC is easy to implement, easy to understand and just plain works. That's my opinion, and the reader can take from that what they will. I don't see a need to caution people away from CC, rather the opposite. I felt that adding an actual developer's experience in a demanding performance regime would be useful.

After all, it's why you developed your performance web site, isn't it? To use actual experience rather than debate hypothetical scenarios? To be sure, I appreciate your opinion, and have found this discussion interesting and useful.

I've been forced to look at my experience and reflect on whether it was justified or my desire to tinker with something new. After reflecting on it, I can say with honesty that I would solve the same problem with commitment control today. That doesn't diminish your addition to the thread one whit in my eyes. Thanks for your time and your thoughts.
--buck