[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
Comments intermixed [] Mark Little wrote: > Comments in the usual "xml-lite" tags. > > > > > 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 ] > > <ml>OK</ml> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 ] > > <ml>The problem I have with a conference call is that many people on the TC > find it difficult to attend them and if we are to vote on this then we > really should try to reach the largest audience possible. An educated vote > is obviously what we would want to achieve. So, if we did a teleconference > then we would have to minute it in detail and send that round and then get > feedback from people on the mailing list and ... > > And purely on a personal basis, at the moment I'm spending more than enough > time on teleconferences. Email I can do from home or anywhere. > </ml> > [ I know the feeling - we can work quicker verbally, agree or not on the issues then doc them ] > [ > <ml>I'd just like to stress a couple of point again: > > (i) we have never said that this functionality isn't required, only that it > may already be possible in another way and that we should take it one step > at a time: let's learn to walk as a specification committee before we try to > run. IMO the 1.0 version of the specification will be like any other 1.0 > I've ever seen: people will look at it and find fault with it and the 1.1 > version will be the one that most people will use. So, let's do this in a > 1.1 timeframe where we have more time to carefully consider our options. > > (ii) the business case you briefly outlined does look at first glance like > it could be done using interposition (subcoordination). From a protocol > point of view I'd like to see this explored to see why (and if) it doesn't > match your requirements. > > </ml> > [ I am VERY open to exploring your ideas, I need this functionality in version 1 ] > > > > > > > > > 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