Talk:Online transaction processing

Problem with citation
Article claims the definition of a transaction by the TPC is a complete business exchange. However the cite link just goes to the frontpage of the TPC site. I cannot find TPC's definition of a transaction from there.

76.102.12.213 (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change
To maintain parallel construction with the OLAP article, I recommend that either one of the following should take place: Either method works for me, so long as these two articles are parallel in their construction. There is currently one vote over on the OLAP article to keep that article named OLAP, with a redirect from "Online analytical processing." What do you all think? Thanks. SqlPac 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Online transaction processing article should be renamed "OLTP", and "Online transaction processing" should redirect to the "OLTP" article, -or-
 * The OLAP article should be renamed "Online analytical processing", and "OLAP" should redirect to the "Online analytical processing" article.

Problem with content:
The sentence "OLTP is often integrated into service-oriented architecture and Web services." is wrong. There is a general move towards SOA and Web Services, but this is a new trend of the past couple of years - SOA and Web Services is not yet as widely deployed as people would believe.

I don't have the time to research this and add citations - but a good direction would be to use statistics from SAP and Oracle etc. for a general idea of how far web services and SOA is deployed - SAP is aiming for ~3000 services by the end of 2007 yet at the moment they have <500.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Online transaction processing → OLTP — Use same naming convention as OLAP article, as proposed originally on May 17. —SqlPac 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. This article and OLAP article should have parallel construction in naming and use the same naming convention. SqlPac 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support 132.205.44.134 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe that this move conflicts with "Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form." Naming_conventions, as it is not sufficiently widely known. It is OLAP that should be moved. -- Beardo 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm not sure whether to call that supporting or opposing! The naming convention would be consistent if both names were expanded, and the acronyms should be redirects. - JCLately 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the naming convention should be consistent in both places. I originally suggested renaming OLAP but encountered an opposing vote on that page, so I suggested the reverse here.  I just visited OLAP, and it looks like someone may have already renamed it to match this one; so this might be a moot point at this point anyway.  I'll verify and withdraw my recommendation if someone has already moved OLAP.  Also, in this case, while I do agree with using the expanded version for the official page name, I think that OLAP and OLTP are used widely enough and are sufficiently widely-known to satisfy the exception criteria of the policy.  Just my opinion though.  Thanks. SqlPac 04:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * It looks like OLAP was changed to match OLTP, so I think this is no longer an issue. There was a dissenter on the OLAP page when I originally recommended that OLAP be changed to match OLTP, so this issue may come up again in the future.  For now it looks like it's been resolved satisfactorily, with both articles using the same naming convention.  Thanks. SqlPac 05:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)