Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO

From: Pierra (pierra_at_sprynet.com)
Date: 01/06/04 

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:39:03 GMT

Doug -

Agreed, the commit or "end" verb does end the transaction. The problem
comes about when you need to get back to a point BEFORE (caps for
emphasis, not yelling :) ) a particular point in time.

Going back to my example. Say I ran Billing at 7:00 PM, and at 8:00 PM
I inadvertently ran it again. Both program(s) went to normal end. The
problem is that the 8:00 run should not have run. Because only
transactions are journaled or logged, I cannot go back to the start of
the 8:00 PM run by "backing out" transactions. I must restore from
backup and re-apply all transactions from the backup time until 8:00 PM.
   If you only backup (probably because of time constraints) at the
start of the business day, all transactions initiated during the day
until 8:00 PM must be re-applied.

My "problem" is not with the Commit verb. My "problem" is not being
able to "roll back" committed transactions to a point in time. And that
is a "feature" of "modern" database systems.

***

Doug Scott wrote:
> Pierra,
>
>
>>Many modern databases that only "journal" the results of a transaction
>>cannot back these transactions out of a completed transaction. It's a
>>shame, but we have progressed to the past.
>
>
> Yes, but that's what the Commit verb does - it ends the transaction.
> There are some 4GLs which try to avoid the explicit Commit, but there are
> usually ways around it.
>
> ---
>
> Doug
>
> dwscott@ieee.org
>
>