5 ms·

> In the beginning (that is, the 90’s), developers created the three-tier application. [...] Of course, application architecture has evolved greatly since the 9

by ptx 2y ago

> In the beginning (that is, the 90’s), developers created the three-tier application. [...] Of course, application architecture has evolved greatly since the 90's. [...] This complexity has created a new problem for application developers: how to coordinate operations in a distributed backend? For example: How to atomically perform a set of operations in multiple services, so that all happen or none do? This doesn't seem like a correct description of events. Distributed systems existed in the 90s and there was e.g. Microsoft Transaction Server [0] which was intended to do exactly this. It's not a new problem. And the article concludes: > This manages the complexity of a distributed world, bringing the complexity of a microservice RPC call or third-party API call closer to that of a regular function call. Ah, just like DCOM [1] then, just like in the 90s. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Transaction_Server https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Transaction_Server [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Component_Object_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Component_Object_M...

smithkl42 2y ago
I only ever played with DCOM and Transaction Server, and never in production, but I do wonder what about that tech stack made it so absolutely unworkable, and such a technological dead-end? Did anyone ever manage to make it work?
- dventimi 2y ago
  What I remember is that there were social reasons, market reasons, and technical reasons that MTS didn't pan out. First, Microsoft was out-of-fashion in startup culture. Second, the exploding internet boom had little demand for distributed transactions. Third, COM was a proprietary technology that relied on C++ at a time when developers were flocking to easier memory-managed languages like Java, which was or at least was perceived to be more "open." I'm sure there were other reasons, but that's what looms in my mind.

by ptx 2y ago

smithkl42 2y ago

I only ever played with DCOM and Transaction Server, and never in production, but I do wonder what about that tech stack made it so absolutely unworkable, and such a technological dead-end? Did anyone ever manage to make it work?

dventimi 2y ago
What I remember is that there were social reasons, market reasons, and technical reasons that MTS didn't pan out. First, Microsoft was out-of-fashion in startup culture. Second, the exploding internet boom had little demand for distributed transactions. Third, COM was a proprietary technology that relied on C++ at a time when developers were flocking to easier memory-managed languages like Java, which was or at least was perceived to be more "open." I'm sure there were other reasons, but that's what looms in my mind.