[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 37 : Acceptable to application or participant
True, but in
BTP we've consciously placed most of the intelligence about consistency at the
participant side. Of course if the user finds that this isn't acceptable then
they won't use the service again, but at the end of the day it's always down to
the participant. With an ACID transaction system, both the user and participant
have an implicit contract about what will happen in the case of commit and roll
back. Such a contract doesn't (and possible never could in a general way) exist
in BTP.
My point is
that this "inter-party contract" doesn't exist in BTP. We have no support for
it, and we barely mention what it "should" be in a "best practices"
p.o.v.
But everyone
using an ACID transaction system from the client down to the resource *knows*
what to expect in all conditions. With the exception of heuristics, they can say
*exactly* what the state of the system will be despite failures or concurrent
access. That isn't possible with BTP. My point isn't that this is wrong, but
that the original text implies that information about the state of the state (!)
is available to the client somehow as a result of using BTP. It isn't, and the
client has no way of controlling this, except by using his commercial might if
it turns out that the participant did something he didn't like upon cancel. In
addition, I think it's extremely important to point this out to participant
implementors.
Mark.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark@arjuna.com | mark_little@hp.com 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