Transactional Integrity
So I was hesitant to write this blog since it provides evidence of my geek-roots. But Kiwi's have a tendency to alleviate the hesitation. When I took Distributed Systems at CMU one of the things that we learnt was transactional-integrity - i.e. maintaining the ACID properties for transactions. Where ACID is Atomic, Consistent, Isolated and Durable. And one approach to do this for distributed transactions is to use two-phase commits (a little bilt too much to explain in this blog, for those of you who know what the heck I'm talking about, good for you. For others, it doesn't really matter, because the geeky part is not the point).
I think I took transactional integrity a step too far. At the time I thought this is cool... I can apply this to everyday stuff. And so I became anal. Very anal. Everything had to be done the right way or else it wasn't satisfactory. Every email I received, had to be answered, because it was a transaction and it had to be processed as per the laws of transactional-integrity. And because of it, even till today I not only answer every "directed" email addressed to me, but I also expect a response to every directed email I send out (directed as opposed to mass). And it's not only email it's everything. Every thing is a transaction. It must be "closed out" in order for it to be complete and to get taken off the stack.
But sometimes the stack gets overwhelming. There is too much going on. Too many open issues. Too many transactions. Too many things that I just want to get away from them for a little bit. But if I get away I'm afraid I'll leave things undone -- leave some transaction un-committed. And they will get lost in the ether of my desire to let them go. In a way this craxy thing of applying transactional logic to every day things is good since it makes sure that things get done. On the other hand it drives me nuts to not be able to let go of stuff every once in a while.
Lately, I've been consciously trying to not get myself involved so deeply so as to claim ownership. Because if I do get that deeply involved, the control-freak in me surfaces in order to try and make sure that everything gets done the way it is supposed to be done and no less.
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure no one knows what the heck I'm talkinging about here so I may as well shut the hell up.
I think I took transactional integrity a step too far. At the time I thought this is cool... I can apply this to everyday stuff. And so I became anal. Very anal. Everything had to be done the right way or else it wasn't satisfactory. Every email I received, had to be answered, because it was a transaction and it had to be processed as per the laws of transactional-integrity. And because of it, even till today I not only answer every "directed" email addressed to me, but I also expect a response to every directed email I send out (directed as opposed to mass). And it's not only email it's everything. Every thing is a transaction. It must be "closed out" in order for it to be complete and to get taken off the stack.
But sometimes the stack gets overwhelming. There is too much going on. Too many open issues. Too many transactions. Too many things that I just want to get away from them for a little bit. But if I get away I'm afraid I'll leave things undone -- leave some transaction un-committed. And they will get lost in the ether of my desire to let them go. In a way this craxy thing of applying transactional logic to every day things is good since it makes sure that things get done. On the other hand it drives me nuts to not be able to let go of stuff every once in a while.
Lately, I've been consciously trying to not get myself involved so deeply so as to claim ownership. Because if I do get that deeply involved, the control-freak in me surfaces in order to try and make sure that everything gets done the way it is supposed to be done and no less.
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure no one knows what the heck I'm talkinging about here so I may as well shut the hell up.
posted by sneaker @ 8:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home