[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: interposition requirements
> >Not sure which Mark you mean, but I'll take a stab at it: first I don't > >see that the participant and the sub-coordinator have to be different; > > Per f2f definitions a service and a participant are different interfaces > (they may be the same entity - implemantation detail) , a service has a > business function interface while a participant has a BTP interface. That's fine. I was talking about the participant and the sub-coordinator, not the service. > > > if a participating web service wants to propagate the context to other, > > back-end (for example) web services then as well as doing it's own work > > when it's told to "prepare" it sends this message to those back-end > > services, i.e., it acts like a sub-coordinator. > > It simply invokes a new service (depending on the context the > sub-coordinator of service invoked may register with the root coordinator > or with our sub-coordinator.) Agreed. > Whether the service invoked implements both a business service interface > and a BTP interface depends on the implementation but as far as BTP > concerened there is an interface to coordinate the transaction, it might be > the service it self - we don't know. Yes, various people including myself have been saying this for a while. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com) Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Phone +44 191 2064538 Fax +44 191 2064203
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC