Comments intermixed <gb>
Mark Little wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:52
PM
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
Comments intermixed <gb>
Mark Little wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:27
PM
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
Comments intermixed []
Mark Little wrote:
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.
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.
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 I think you are in isolation here.
Fine, we shall see if we ever get to a vote.
First off, I am not asking anyone to bend over
backwards ( ooh eerr ) .. and if anyone is under the illusion that I am
they are mistaken. You have missed the core caveat that is in this proposal
.. it is OPTIONAL ..
And you have missed the core point of pretty much every email I've sent
on this subject: whether or not it is optional, it should only be added
to the specification after we have had a chance to consider it in all of
its detail. If we had begun to discuss this significant change in January,
say, then I think it would be possible to say that it should be in 1.0
(assuming it passed the vote); however, for whatever reasons it's only
just come into the view of the entire committee. I would have thought you
would want this carefully considered before we vote on it; that's all we're
saying
<gb> No, Mark the point considering the proposal in detail has never
been lost this I consider is all part of the process </gb>
<ml>OK. At some point
(and fairly soon I'd expect), simply because I assume this issue is open,
we as a committee either need to decide to postpone it (and I'd expect
you would have more of a say in that) or vote on it. Now if you don't think
sufficient time has been spent exploring the issue would you consider postponing
rather than risk have a no vote?</ml>
<gb> Mark, I do think that we need
to spend more time discussing this before we vote on it </gb>
.
I do indeed want this in the spec, as I think it
addresses a major interop problem and thus is attractive to our collective
customers.
We have quite a lot of customers for HP-WST and not a single one of them
has asked for this. That's not to say that they won't eventually (though
I'm still not sure), but by that time we will be well into the 1.x timeframe.
Now if I instisted that every vendor HAD to implement
it - then that would be unreasonable, however I am not.
But if it is not well thought out then adding something that is potentially
broken (again, I'm not saying it is, only that if we rush it through we
might miss something that is needed) will screw up the specification. The
BTP spec. has taken 12 months to get to this stage and we've spend many
weeks on lots of issues to try to iron the out now rather than find them
when people actually come to implement. Let's not throw that away now by
adding something (anything, not just this) in haste. I've said to various
people on the committee that HP have several things we'd like to see added
to BTP but we have deliberately not mentioned them just now in case it
delays the specification further.
<gb> I think we are all in agreement on this </gb>
<ml>Great, so I would assume that this means the answer
to my question above is yes?</ml>
<gb> Your understanding on this is correct </gb>
Yes, Oracle was late to the party, but at least
we are here. This to the best of my knowledge is the only major issue that
Oracle has. Step in my shoes Mark - I am asking Oracle to bend over backwards
to support this spec. And the proposal I put in has value and I am not
dictating to anyone.
I don't think we're at odds here on Oracle believing there is value here.
Great. (If it's based on a business case then I'd love to see it so we
can show it to our sales guys too ;-) We've never said "remove the issue",
only "defer it until 1.1" and give us all time to consider it. Is that
unreasonable?
<gb> From my viewpoint, as this proposal is not a major change, (we)
see no point at all in defering it to 1.1 </gb>
<ml>It is a significant change. It requires us to agree
on a serialisable form, to determine what the mechanism for getting the
state is (e.g., what's the message set extension?), to agree when this
message can be sent, what are the security implications, ... </ml>
<ml>BTW, I'm not sure
if this has been made clear before, but we are not arguing against this
proposal from an implementation point of view - for us, implementing this
facility as it currently stands would be trivial. But that's not the point
- we still wouldn't have interoperable answers to all of the above questions.</ml>
<gb> I am glad that you have clarified your position </gb>
This is a version 1 - ticket item. I am not going
to drop this one Mark, I feel it is to important ]
And we'll continue to disagree. We have many customers using (essentially)
version 1.0 and they don't miss this feature. And they are not using BTP
in a simple manner. However, as I said above, that's not to say they won't
ask for this later, but if (and when) they do I'd much rather have a solid
story for them in the BTP specification than something that may not be
as well thought out as we'd like.
<gb> It would be inappropriate for I to comment on what your particular
customers want and what their thoughts are. </gb>
<ml>Agreed, but are you saying you have customers now who
want to export from Oracle's implementation of BTP (I'm assuming there
is, or will be, one) to HPs to XYZs? I'd find that hard to believe since
this is such a new area *and* there's only one implementation out there
at the moment. Give it a few more months and there may be more implementations
but I still don't expect to see such an "export/import" requirement then.
If it happens, I'd assume it will be years down the line when these implementations
(or others) have really got some use and are becoming more prevelant. By
then, we will probably by way past 1.0.</ml>
<gb> Customers prefer seamless interoperability between their vendors
propriety TP technology and the BTP. </gb>
Cheers,
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.
[ it is a fact ]
Good. All the best, Mark. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Architect (Transactions), HP Arjuna Labs
PHONE : +44 191 206 4538, FAX : +44 191 206 4203
EMAIL : mark@arjuna.com
| mark_little@hp.com
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>
> >
> >
|