[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Context
Sazi,
I assume the "not" in the first sentence is a typo,or it should say "If" instead of "Unless" - the sentence doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.
CONTEXT is *not* used between Superior and Inferior.
It is used in relation to application messages - broadly from Initiator to Service,
but the particulars are only as understood by the application (which in this sense includes application-supporting infrastructure like interceptors, containers etc.) and not immediately visible to BTP.This is is out of scope of protocol since it is not visible to BTP.
CONTEXT is also used on the Initiator:Factory exchanges - related to BEGUN as the way the CONTEXT is delivered to the application from the Factory that just made it, and related to BEGIN to indicate that a sub-coordinator/sub-composer is to be created and enrolled with the Superior identified by the CONTEXT.
I don't see how Jim's proposal affects transaction coordination as such. It seems to affect only the representation of the information on the Initiator:Factory exchange. It would be an incompatible change though, precisely because it affects the representation
Peter.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Sazi Temel [mailto:sazi.temel@bea.com]
- Sent: 03 February 2002 19:23
- To: Peter Furniss
- Cc: WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1); BT - spec
- Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Context
- Unless we do not have good reason to send/receive Context between roles other than Initiator and Service, I think I would support Jim in this issue.. Peter, can you summarize why you think Context should be used in Superior:Inferior communications... I have not looked at the issue in detail but I think if this became an issue it should be resolved in version 1.0 since it has an impact on transaction coordination.
- --Sazi
- At 04:42 PM 2/3/02 +0000, Peter Furniss wrote:
- > > as issue list maintainer: I won't make this a new issue
- > > unless you ask, but will if you do.
- >
- > Hmm. I'm in two minds. Is it possible to make it an issue for the 1.1
- > version of the spec :-)
- That's almost more of a PR question than anything else. I think if it gets
- put on the current list, it's a candidate for 1.0, but a potential
- resolution is "deferred" to future version.
- > I definitely don't want to get rid of the context, but I am starting to
- > think it should only appear in application messages, and not in the
- > transaction-coordination messages. I think it could well be a useful
- > factorisation.
- >
- > For example, someone building a BTP-aware service will only have to
- > understand what a Context is, whereas people building transaction managers
- > don't. The people in the middle (i.e. application developers or
- > more likely
- > those that develop infrastructure for applications) must understand both,
- > but then they are in the right position to do so since they know about
- > services and transactions.
- I would hope that people building transaction managers would understand how
- to use transactions, at least in theory :-)
- > How about if anyone else apart from me thinks it's an issue then
- > let's talk
- > about it, otherwise let's put it asside for now. Anyone else have anything
- > to say?
- Fine. Does Jim have a seconder ?
- Peter
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
- manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
- Sazi Temel
- '
- b
ea Systems Inc.- 140 Allen Road
Liberty Corner, NJ 07938 - sazi.temel@bea.com
- sazi.temel@ieee.org
- (1) 908 580 3123
- http://www.bea.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC