Just a quick observation since this article tackles the problem of the user mental model vs. computer model:
Why does everyone insist on using Account Transfer as their primary example of system transactions?
Mentally the user may picture some sort of ACIDic transaction going on, but implementation-wise: no bank accounting system I ever came across uses transactions for this use case -
They all implement some variant of the Double Bookkeeping accounting principle; at best, you'll find a system transaction spanning the source account and some intermediary mother-of-all collection account (though not likely since most are of a different age). The target account is most frequently not at the same bank, and even when, the Double Bookkeeping principle is still used. Even what the balance is on the account depends on what you're after, as the bank knows several.
In many ways, Banks implementation of the Account Transfer use-case is really closer to what is known as BASE: Basically Available, Soft State, Eventually Consistent; where end of day reconciliation ensures the consistency of the balance(s) on the account.
As an example Account Transfer may explain to developers the mental model behind how transactions are supposed to work, but it does not help them translate the mental model into a working computer model.
Flat View: This topic has 119 replies
on 120 pages
[
«
|
373839404142434445
|
»
]
Previous Topic
