Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > ASP .Net Web Services > trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object

Reply
Thread Tools

trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object

 
 
Ken
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2004
This is a basic question:

Is it better to use the TrasactionAtributte on a Web Method (COM+) than use
a normal SqlTransaction object ?

What is the advantage on performance and transaction security?

ken
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dan Rogers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2004
Hi Ken,

Here's my take on your question.

When you choose to use a SQL transaction, you are defining the boundary of
the transaction in your stored procedure or application code. This will
work fine for many self contained applications that are not intended to be
aggregated into larger transactions in a compose-able manner.

When you use COM+ transaction attributes, you are describing how your
component can participate in a transaction. For instance, you can say that
your component will not participate in a transaction, that your component
always opens a new transaction context, or even that your component can
participate in an existing transaction - starting a new one only if one is
not already started.

This kind of declarative and compose-able transaction ability lets you
program components that can be placed into transactions in ways that the
original programmer didn't know of at the time a component was coded.

Contrast this to the self contained, and non-compose-able SQL transaction
object, and you end up with several useful transaction approaches to use as
you need them in your application designs.

As for efficiency, that is a hard to pin-down term without more specifics.
There is programmer efficiency, network efficiency, throughput factors,
etc. That said, it is fair to say that some people feel that COM+
transactions and the use of the distributed transaction coordinator
introduces added scale-out issues to consider before making a statement
that places one transaction approach over the other with an "always"
attached. In the SQL transaction, the one SQL server is the arbibitrator
of the transaction bounds, so there is less communication going on over the
network. However, in the case where you need to coordinate
two-phase-commit over several resources that are transaction enabled, you
end up using a coordinator anyhow, so the only gain is in the
single-database, database-only, multi-table consistent update case.

I hope this helps,

Dan Rogers
Microsoft Corporation
--------------------
>Thread-Topic: trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object
>thread-index: AcS1P8oPP1nkdzq8Qnif2IE7Q8k+CA==
>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 200.44.20.8
>From: =?Utf-8?B?S2Vu?= <(E-Mail Removed)>
>Subject: trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object
>Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:25:05 -0700
>Lines: 8
>Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.1.29
>Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es:25891
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
>
>This is a basic question:
>
>Is it better to use the TrasactionAtributte on a Web Method (COM+) than

use
>a normal SqlTransaction object ?
>
>What is the advantage on performance and transaction security?
>
>ken
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2004
uff helps a lot, Thks.

"Dan Rogers" wrote:

> Hi Ken,
>
> Here's my take on your question.
>
> When you choose to use a SQL transaction, you are defining the boundary of
> the transaction in your stored procedure or application code. This will
> work fine for many self contained applications that are not intended to be
> aggregated into larger transactions in a compose-able manner.
>
> When you use COM+ transaction attributes, you are describing how your
> component can participate in a transaction. For instance, you can say that
> your component will not participate in a transaction, that your component
> always opens a new transaction context, or even that your component can
> participate in an existing transaction - starting a new one only if one is
> not already started.
>
> This kind of declarative and compose-able transaction ability lets you
> program components that can be placed into transactions in ways that the
> original programmer didn't know of at the time a component was coded.
>
> Contrast this to the self contained, and non-compose-able SQL transaction
> object, and you end up with several useful transaction approaches to use as
> you need them in your application designs.
>
> As for efficiency, that is a hard to pin-down term without more specifics.
> There is programmer efficiency, network efficiency, throughput factors,
> etc. That said, it is fair to say that some people feel that COM+
> transactions and the use of the distributed transaction coordinator
> introduces added scale-out issues to consider before making a statement
> that places one transaction approach over the other with an "always"
> attached. In the SQL transaction, the one SQL server is the arbibitrator
> of the transaction bounds, so there is less communication going on over the
> network. However, in the case where you need to coordinate
> two-phase-commit over several resources that are transaction enabled, you
> end up using a coordinator anyhow, so the only gain is in the
> single-database, database-only, multi-table consistent update case.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Dan Rogers
> Microsoft Corporation
> --------------------
> >Thread-Topic: trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object
> >thread-index: AcS1P8oPP1nkdzq8Qnif2IE7Q8k+CA==
> >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 200.44.20.8
> >From: =?Utf-8?B?S2Vu?= <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >Subject: trasactionAtributte Vs SqlTransaction object
> >Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:25:05 -0700
> >Lines: 8
> >Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="Utf-8"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
> >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
> >Importance: normal
> >Priority: normal
> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
> >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.1.29
> >Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
> >Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl

> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es:25891
> >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
> >
> >This is a basic question:
> >
> >Is it better to use the TrasactionAtributte on a Web Method (COM+) than

> use
> >a normal SqlTransaction object ?
> >
> >What is the advantage on performance and transaction security?
> >
> >ken
> >

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SQLTransaction IsolationLevel questions eric.goforth@gmail.com ASP .Net 0 06-07-2006 04:21 PM
SqlTransaction problem Neven Klofutar ASP .Net 3 11-26-2005 01:49 PM
SqlTransaction Record Not Found Joe Rigley ASP .Net 0 11-11-2005 06:31 PM
SqlTransaction issue Piotr Strycharz ASP .Net 5 12-16-2004 08:28 AM
Help! SQLTransaction and Identity(?) column in SQL Server 2K .Net Newbie ASP .Net 2 07-09-2004 09:50 AM



Advertisments