Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Doug Scott (dwscott_at_ieee.org)
Date: 01/03/04
- Previous message: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:23:08 GMT
Peter,
> I don't see "interaction" as being necessary to the definition of either
> "transaction" or "Batch". Maybe that's where we differ.
I think it's crucial. For me, a batch process runs against a set of
transactions (the set may be zero or more transactions) without human
intervention. An interactive one processes a single transaction. Both may
process to completion, or require further (batch) processing to complete
the business logic. For "real time" read "interactive" in my earlier
posts, since were talking commerce here rather than all computing.
--- Doug dwscott@ieee.org
- Previous message: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|