[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
Comment intermixed [] Mark Little wrote: > > Can you make your questions explicit .. I only see highlighted text ?? > > It's the way that Word shows that a comment has been assigned to that text. > If you move over the text the you should see the comment. > > > > > I very disappointed that you feel that I do not answer your questions ?? > > Sorry, but this is just based on past experiences. If you go back over the > mail archive you will see that we sent out several messages asking for > clarification on issue 89 between 2 and 3 weeks ago and got nothing back > from you. > [ This MUST have fallen through a hole .. as I always *try* and provide an answer be it verbal or written ] > > > > > Always happy to elaborate .. I feel a conf call my serve as a better > medium ... > > I will be unable to make the conf call next Wednesday as I will be with a > client > > .. therefore, please provide some suitable dates / times .... > > If it's to be a conference call then I'd prefer it to be one of the official > ones. My preference is email since that is archived. I'm not too happy about > discussing this (or any issue) behind closed doors. > [ I understand this, there is NO activity going on behind closed doors .. I prefer a conf call as the medium is better for resolving disputes ] > > Mark. > > > > > 9pm PST works on the 25th / 29th April. > > > > > > > > Mark Little wrote: > > > > > Geoff, I'd be happy if you could also answer all other queries in the > marked > > > up Word document and previous emails on this subject. They are all meant > to > > > be constructive, despite what you may feel. As I have said time and time > > > again, if you can show that this is a useful thing to do then I believe > we > > > should consider it. However, you have not done that and perhaps that is > > > simply down to mis-communication. I know that HP is not the only company > on > > > the committee that feels the same and that others have expressed this in > > > same concern in face-to-face meetings. > > > > > > The fact that you continue not to answer these real issues does not do > this > > > issue any good. I know that we are all busy with other things, but if > you > > > feel strongly about this issue then I hope you will find the time to try > to > > > convince myself and others. > > > > > > Mark. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Geoffrey Brown" <Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com> > > > To: "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com> > > > Cc: "Bt-Spec" <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Brown,Geoffrey" > > > <GEOFFREY.BROWN@oracle.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:42 PM > > > Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89 > > > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > > > As this is a constructive request from yourself (HP) I am happy to > > > elaborate > > > > elaborate. Considering that the BTP contains a huge amount of TP Gurus > > > this > > > > should make sense .. I hope ;-) > > > > > > > > The issue : > > > > ----------- > > > > > > > > It is very attractive to gain "peer" level inter operability with the > BTP > > > TM, by > > > > "peer" level inter operability I mean the ability of a non-BTP TM to > > > collect the > > > > state ( on demand ) and therefore continue execution within a > traditional > > > TP > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > A natural by-product of this approach is that it provides much greater > > > levels of > > > > HA. > > > > > > > > Where this comes from : > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > > > My experience with integrating transactional application and > navigating > > > supply > > > > chains ( i.e. vendors apps et al ) is that one has to "patch" together > > > > transactional state across TPMs. This is a well known problem that > many > > > SIs > > > > face, due to limitations with TP monitors this is usually addressed by > > > > asynchronous messaging. Ironically this is exactly why TP monitors can > not > > > be > > > > used across the web today ; I architected Oracle's Message Broker for > this > > > very > > > > reason. > > > > > > > > Summary : > > > > ----------- > > > > > > > > This is not rocket science .. this is common sense. Bindings allow > > > > "client-server" inter operability only. Let me be clear that bindings > are > > > needed > > > > but I feel they do not address the aforementioned problem .. *IF* the > BTP > > > > committee want a truly *OPEN* transaction infrastructure then this > > > proposal > > > > addresses the problem. > > > > > > > > Again I propose this approach as an "optional" part of the BTP spec - > for > > > large > > > > scale complex transactional infrastructures. The BTP TM should only > render > > > its > > > > current state in XML on DEMAND and not for every single operation. > > > > > > > > If there are any constructive alternatives please let me know as I > will be > > > very > > > > happy to apply these to the real-world problems that the industry > faces. > > > > > > > > Geoff. > > > > > > > > > > > > "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > I've just read Geoff's document and Mark's comments. Now I am > perfectly > > > > > willing to accept that I might be being naïve here, but could > someone > > > please > > > > > clarify for me what precisely the benefits of sharing state in a > common > > > > > format are? I can well enough see the drawbacks for myself, but I am > > > rather > > > > > finding the benefits difficult to quantify. > > > > > > > > > > I don't have an objection to J2EE (or any other platform for that > > > matter) > > > > > interop with BTP, but does sharing of state (as opposed to say > defining > > > > > standard bindings at the message level) really achieve that > objective in > > > a > > > > > straightfoward way? > > > > > > > > > > Again, this isn't a rebuttal to the Oracle/Choreology suggestion, > more > > > of a > > > > > plea for help in understanding its value. > > > > > > > > > > Ta. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > >
Attachment:
Geoffrey.Brown.vcf
Description: Card for Geoffrey Brown
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC