No problems encountered here. But I don't use
Outlook, so can't say for sure.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 1:39
AM
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
I'm
trying to get caught up with this thread. For some reason the last n
(approx 4 - 5) emails from Geoff
are
causing Outlook to crash for me. I'm gleaning what I can from Mark's
side of the conversation. Is this
a
problem with my system only or have others had any
problems?
Thanks,
=bill
Just to be clear, the proposal is on the table for version 1.0 of
the specification - not for version 1.1 . I raised this well before the
issues list was closed ( issue 89 ).
Geoff, there's no disputing that this
issue is open. What I would dispute is the difference between mentioning
something is coming and actually providing the committee with details on
what that "thing" is. This definitely did not happen until the last f2f as
far as I can see. I remember you mentioning JMS-interop a couple of times on
teleconferences but that's it. If you can point me at the tc minutes or
archived emails that show different I'd certainly stand
corrected.
Mark.
Mark Little wrote:
[Mark Potts] Geoff, Mark, Jim -
Hi!Mark,
Apologies
.. I retract the comment about missing questions, find the spec
attached with answers to your comments ( annotations ). This
supplements the other email threads.
BTW - Don't feel you have to justify your position with vague
comments like .. " 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" .. I would
expect the other participants to openly express their opinions in
a constructive manner, I have very thick skin and an equally open
mind. I feel the proposal I have made stands on it's own
merits. As far as I am aware they have. However, you
are certainly correct in that it would be good to hear from others
on this subject. [Mark
Potts] Ok I am I am sure it is me being discussed as the cloaked
third party here!
There are others, but I'd prefer to close that part of this
topic now.
I have not entered the
foray as yet, since voicing my objection at the f2f, because
1) I have been at the WS-I for last 3 days and am behind in e-mail
terribly 2) was waiting for the use cases that determine/define this
features so I can look at it in detail and bounce the concepts and
see if our contacts see a need, have pain or could benefit from
this. I was asked at the f2f to wait, in voicing objections, until
we had this document and then discuss the appropriateness of the
proposal - now I have the docs and details I will be reading them
today.On a less specific
point, I have stated for a long time now that there are some things
I believe would add real value to the spec (we needed to look at
SOAP Intermediaries and SOAP routing, SOAP Referral because of
a cases similar to Geoff's ) however I have been told NO repeatedly,
justified by concerns that we cannot increase scope and the spec has
to be finished and put out there. As a committee we all agreed to not only
close scope but close issues last month and while I think Geoff's
suggestions would be good to look at in terms of future work I think
its exactly that - future
work.
Agreed, though that shouldn't come as a surprise given the
emails that have flown back and forth.
My concerns with these
issues run a little deeper in that, during the last month or two,
the spec is being driven by the concerns of a number of companies
now specifically regarding their product direction and
needs.
Again agreed. We've held off on adding anything to the spec. at
this late stage that might be seen as product related and we're quite
happy to continue to do that.
The spec should not be
driven this way. If I could take you back a month or 5, there were
certain accusation about made about BEA in the past, regarding
product direction driving the spec, when they tried to de-scope and
simplify! The spec HAS
to
be driven by problems the industry is facing, and in my mind
specifically transactionality for Web Services, although I agree the
bindings could be expanded to support other type of
scenarios.
Also
your comment " The fact that you continue not to answer these
real issues does not do this issue any good " ... Other
than a decent use case requirement, which is well justified, I
feel that I have answered ALL your questions .. With the
last 2 emails you have certainly begun to answer those questions.
And for that I'm grateful. [Mark Potts] Agreed I
think I see more clearly now what Geoff is defining in terms of
need - that however does not mean it has to be included in the
scope of the spec at this time - or it could if deemed
IMPERATIVE.
The discussion that has started to take place over the last day
or so has definitely been useful in beginning to clarify what the
problem is, but it's still a long way off defining what the solution
should be. If it has taken us this long to get to this stage then who
knows how long it will take to come to a resolution. Should we delay the
spec. just to get issue 89 in? I'd prefer not to. I'd also prefer not to
have to vote on it just in case the vote is no and it gets dropped *and*
it turns out to have been a useful thing
afterall.
now
if you accept them or not is a different matter ... One could also
say that I was warned your resistance was to be expected for many
reasons .. and no doubt from the same sources you refer to. I will
naturally let these sources speak for themselves rather than use
them as a justification for my position. We (HP) are not
in a position that having Oracles support on BTP is so important
that we will bend-over backwards to accomodate all isues you may say
you require. That's not the way this committee has worked in the
past and just because we are close to finishing I don't think we
should change. All I am asking for is a good use case and a strong
reason for why this should be added *now*. If you read back through
all of the emails I have sent on this subject you will see that I
have never said we should not discuss this or that it shouldn't be
added; only that it should be discussed *in detail* and deferred to
post 1.0 because there is a lot more required than just state
serialisation. Not having this in the 1.0 specification will not
affect its take-up IMO, but having it in in a potentially broken
form may make it harder to correct later (note, I am *not* saying
that the XML we've seen is broken or anything, only that if this is
rushed through we run the risk of missing important things that may
be required to accomplish what you want.) This all seems reasonable
to me. [Mark
Potts] I sort of agree with Mark here as per my last set of
comments - What happens if IBM decide to join the party
tomorrow and add their take on transaction and the WSTx - do we
change the spec again to accommodate their concerns too! Oracle
bring great value to the effort and credibility to TC but we need to
get something
closed.
The longer we wait, the greater the chance that BTP will lose
relevance. We're already starting to see this with IBM and MSFT. We are
seeing this with some customers who now could care less about BTP
compatibility. Once we have a standard we can at least point to it as
*the only* standard out there. We can't do that as
yet.
Mark.
And
.. " I know that we are all busy with other things" .. as I
mentioned to the group - I am at the whim of Oracle's 4th Quarter
and at the scheduling of the BTP calls ... I do my best - period. I
am truly sorry that I can not make HP's FTF, however I have noted
that we are both presenting at NextWare (May 20-23) yourself on
"transactions in a web services model" and I on "GRID
infrastructure" so hopefully we can finally meet F2F.I look forward
to it.
Anyway,
keep it professional and not personal .. we all want the
same thing, a BTP that is valuable. I hope so
too. Mark.
Geoff.
Geoffrey Brown wrote:
Mark,
Can you make your questions explicit .. I only see
highlighted text ??
I very disappointed that you feel that I do not answer your
questions ??
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 ....
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>
> > >
>
|