Following the previous post I had a chance to exchange a few email with Mark Little (the director of engineering in the JBoss division of Red Hat). Mark thinks the topic of transactions and SOA has been beaten to death already and wonder's why does it need to resurface (see his post "Is anyone out there?") - I don't see a problem with discussions resurfacing when new people are faced with situations others already solved (but that's a matter for another post)

Anyway, the reasons we're here is  that I think that during this conversation  mark made a few interesting observations and I think the end result is pretty interesting. I decided (with his permission) to post it here ( It is only minimally edited: no deletions, few additions (in []) and a few time shifting to make it more coherent as a single conversation)

Mark : From what I can see it's [the arguments on transaction and services - are] the same old arguments that have gone round and round, ignoring the important fundamental issues and not doing enough background research.
Sagas are transactional - it's just an Extended Transaction model and not an ACID transaction model. Don't get hung up on the word "transaction", which is way to overloaded in our industry to actually mean anything by itself. Plus, 2PC is a consensus protocol too; it does not impose any other aspect of ACID than the A. Even the D is optional until/unless you want to tolerate failures.

Arnon I know this is an old argument - but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile

Mark It isn't worthwhile if people aren't going to listen I've been involved in these debates so many times over the past 7 years (for Web Services transactions) and longer for extended transactions, that it gets a bit old after a while. Maybe we should create a wiki page and point people at that ?

Arnon I guess, but you should keep in mind that people who are solely in the .NET camp only got WS-AT recently with Windows Communications Foundation so you can expect the issues to resurface. By the way a wiki might not be a bad idea 

[regarding 2PC.] 2PC is a distributed consensus protocol and in principle doesn’t have to be related to ACID transaction. But I think the common view and use of it is for ensuring distributed ACID behavior. Looking back at my experience with XA and COM+ transactions it seems it does a good job at achieving this ACIDness


Mark This is an education issue. The literature is clear on this. People who know and understand transactional protocols don't make the mistake of equating 2PC to ACID properties.

Arnon Yes it is an educational issue . But I am not sure that it is that common knowledge. It is expected that middleware vendors who build the tools to support these protocols to understand it better - I don’t think it is that widely known outside these circles. Most of the architects I’ve don’t (maybe It time to look for new friends )

By the way as 2PC is not resilient to failures of the coordinator so in a highly distributed environment like SOA it might have been a better idea to go with paxos commits if at all you go down that path.

Mark The reason WS-AT and WS-ACID chose 2PC is: interoperability. All TP monitors support it. Try getting IBM, MSFT, Oracle, BEA etc. to change to Paxos, 3PC, flat-commit, or anything else and you'll be waiting for the heat death of the universe.

Arnon Can’t argue with that

Mark [also] 2PC is resilient to failures if the coordinator eventually recovers. Paxos has its own failure assumptions too: Jim never disputed this. Same as 3PC and other consensus protocols. As with *any* fault tolerance approach (transactions, recovery blocks, replication, etc) it's always probabilistic. All we're doing is making it highly unlikely that the system cannot complete, but we can never make it entirely safe. Even in the airline industry they can "only" go to a probability that failures happen .000000001

Arnon You are probably right that in an SOA situations the chances of not getting an ACID transaction are worse than in a controlled environment - which actually make the situation even worse since people using WS-AT perceive it as allowing them ACID interaction (e.g. Juvals podcast) .


Mark WS-AT is *all* about ACID, in the same way WS-ACID is about ACID transactions. It is *nothing* to do with SOA though. Web Services are not purely the domain of SOA implementations!

Arnon I totally agree that Web-services and SOA are not directly related and can each exist independently of each other. Again this is an educational issue but,  SOA==Web-services is a very common misconception (I guess the word “service” in web-service doesn’t help )

[in any event] I think distributed transactions in general should be used carefully period.


Mark Absolutely. They are not a global panacea and people who push them as such do more harm than good.

Arnon WS-AT is more problematic than regular distributed transactions as by definition in an SOA you do not know who and how many other services will participate in your transactions so you are much more likely to run into problems.

Sagas which embrace the temporal shift don't give an illusion of ACIDness and allow to focus on achieving distributed consensus while keeping all parties involved consistent. I think that it is a much better option if you need transaction-like behavior

Mark For SOA, yes. Although Sagas are only good for a certain type of use case. That's why we've always tried to develop "live documents" that allow people to add new models when/if needed. With a couple of exceptions during the BTP days, there has always been consensus that one size does not fit all (http://www.webservices.org/weblog/mark_little/blackadder_and_the_micro_kernel_approach_to_web_services_transactions).

Web Services *anything*, whether it's WS-AT, WS-Sec, or WS-Addressing all have their non-SOA aspects because Web Services aren't developed purely with SOA in mind. If that were to happen then Web Services as a technology would lose some of their important benefits immediately.

Arnon This whole discussion is in the context of SOA (at least from my side ) – naturally there’s a place for ACID transactions for other uses.

Regarding Sagas - calling them "Extended transactions that are not ACID" is just semantics - my point was that they are not ACID transaction. I think most people equate transactions with ACID transactions as well (but I may be wrong)

Mark Many people do and that again is an education problem. The term Extended Transactions (don't need to say "that are not ACID") has a well defined meaning in the R&D community. There have been many good models and implementations around Extended Transactions. They really took off in the vendor community through the Additional Structuring Mechanisms for the OTS, back in the 1990's. If you check that out you'll see that it formed the basis of WS-TX and WS-CAF. Even in Jim's original technical report he discussed relaxing all of the ACID properties in a controller manner to get more flexibility. That was the first extended transaction. In fact, ACID transactions are just one type of extended transaction. There are many many others, including nested transactions, coloured actions, epsilon transactions, sagas etc.

Unless I qualify it beforehand, I try to never use the term "transaction" in isolation because it has different meanings to different people. For example, when talking to developers working in trading infrastructures, a "transaction" isn't an ACID transaction at all. In telecos it's different again.