Re: terminology

[Mark Little <mcl@arjuna.com>]

I don't really like the word conductor, it reminds me trains not transactions. I don't think coordinator is overloaded.

I think coordinator is overloaded, and as I said before, if we are allowing traditional transaction systems to be used in conjunction with BTP then there's already two types of coordinator to differentiate. I'd like to have a term that's not used in TP at the very least.

Cohesion sounds fine, although a little too academic. How about "Web transactions" or "Light-weight transactions"?

I don't think we should use the term transaction at all in any term. In this field, transaction == ACID transaction. In addition, "lightweight" is very subjective. Other terms I could think of: collective, cohort, union?

 Anyway, I think there is convergence on the terminology and requirements. 4/30 is approaching, so do you think that you guys (the bt models group) can start to put together a draft requirements/use cases/terminology document that we can discuss at the 4/23 f2f?

We (HP) are working on putting together the Use Case section of the document. I'm still waiting for offers from someone to do the same for the terminology and other sections. I'll send out another email today asking again.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Architect (Transactions), HP Arjuna Labs
PHONE  : +44 191 206 4538, FAX : +44 207 670 1964
EMAIL  : mark@arjuna.com