News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “It's The Future”. Parent comment

Re:“It's The Future” by amelius on Thursday August 18, 2016 @03:21AM (#12310898)
> Then again, sometimes your state changes not only don't need to be transactional; it can be disadvantageous to think of them that way.

I'm curious; in what kinds of situation would this apply?

> Depends, depends, depends.

Flexibility is usually an important requirement. Often you cannot freeze your architecture and be done with it. I think a transactional approach could better fit with this.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“It's The Future” by kafkaesq on Thursday August 18, 2016 @07:54PM (#12317101)
I'm curious; in what kinds of situation would this apply?

Any situation where the business value of having your state be 100% consistent does not outweigh the performance or implementation cost of making it so.

[ Parent | on HN ]