Sunday, March 13, 2011

When ACID is too strong

Transaction processing itself is not by any means a new discipline. Though much innovative and interesting work continues in the field, many of the fundamental techniques and algorithms are well-known and for several decades transactions have been supported on various platforms. However, as Web services have evolved as a means to integrate processes and applications at an inter-enterprise level, traditional transaction semantics and protocols have proven to be inappropriate. Web services or REST-based transactions, colloquially termed Business Transactions, differ from traditional transactions in that they execute over long periods, they require commitments to the transaction to be “negotiated” at runtime, and isolation levels have to be relaxed. Business Transactions require an extended transaction model that builds on existing standards where possible and defines interoperable transaction protocol and message flows that help negotiate transactions guarantees at the inter-enterprise level.

Structuring certain activities from long-running transactions can reduce the amount of concurrency within an application or (in the event of failures) require work to be performed again. For example, there are certain types of application where it is known that resources acquired within a transaction can be released “early”, rather than having to wait until the transaction terminates; in the event of the transaction rolling back, however, certain compensation activities may be necessary to restore the system to a consistent state.

Long-running activities can be structured as many independent, short-duration transactions, to form a “logical” long-running transaction. This structuring allows an activity to acquire and use resources for only the required duration of this long-running activity, as shown.



In the figure, an application activity (shown by the dotted ellipse) has been split into different, coordinated short-duration transactions. Assume that the application activity is concerned with booking a taxi (t1), reserving a table at a restaurant (t2), reserving a seat at the theatre (t3), and then booking a room at a hotel (t4), and so on. If all of these operations were performed as a single transaction then resources acquired during t1 would not be released until the transaction has terminated. If subsequent activities t2, t3 etc. do not require those resources, then they will be needlessly unavailable to other clients.

However, if failures and concurrent access occur during the lifetime of these individual transactional activities then the behavior of the entire “logical long-running transaction” may not possess ACID properties. Therefore, some form of compensation may be required to attempt to return the state of the system to consistency. For example, let us assume that t4 aborts. Further assume that the application can continue to make forward progress, but in order to do so must now undo some state changes made prior to the start of t4 (by t1, t2 or t3). Therefore, new activities are started; tc1 which is a compensation activity that will attempt to undo state changes performed, by say t2, and t3 which will continue the application once tc1 has completed. tc5’ and tc6’ are new activities that continue after compensation, e.g., since it was not possible to reserve the theatre, restaurant and hotel, it is decided to book tickets at the cinema.

Previous transaction processing systems shared a great deal of commonality in terms of the crux of the problem that they address and the abstractions they use to address it. Specifically, transaction processing systems were developed for particular platforms and each system assumes that it is in sole control of the transaction domain and hence does not generally have to interoperate with other transaction processing systems (though interoperability with lower-level components like databases is generally well supported via interfaces like X/Open XA). Early attempts at transaction interoperability (e.g., the Object Transaction Service from the Object Management Group) did not manage to get past the “vendor lock-in” barrier, and attempts at using transactions across enterprise boundaries failed because in such systems transactions are assumed to exhibit ACID properties.

Web services, or REST-based applications, present a different kind of problem: they are specifically about fostering systems interoperability as well as long duration interactions. This presents some interesting problems from a transaction management point of view. What makes Web services so interesting is the fact that the architecture is deliberately not prescriptive about what happens behind service endpoints – Web services are ultimately only concerned with the transfer of structured data between parties, plus any meta-level information to safeguard such transfers (e.g. by encrypting or digitally signing messages) – yet it is behind service endpoints that we find traditional transaction processing architectures supporting business activities.

Thus we are presented with a paradox. The Web services or REST approaches provide a service-oriented, loosely coupled, and potentially asynchronous means of propagating information between parties, whilst in the background we have traditional transaction processing infrastructures whose behavior is neither or mutually interoperable. Furthermore, the fact that transactions in these systems are assumed to exhibit ACID properties potentially leads to problems when exposing resources to third parties, since it presents opportunities to those parties to tie up resources and prevent transactions from making progress. Thus if transactions were to be supported in either of these architectural approaches then it is clear that some re-addressing of the problem is required.

Drum roll ... stay tuned for the next thrilling instalment in the series!
Post a Comment