1)
Comprehendible to people that are not tech geniuses : I am not a
transaction god, but have been privy to all the f2f and calls on this spec,
however I do get lost occasionally trying to recall just why we decided to do
this or that or why the spec dictates this approach. A BTP is a very complex
problem and we need to ensure we have suitable "onramp" facilities for people
to understand the benefits of this standards in commercial business systems
and the potential application to their pain points and opportunities. We also
need to be very sure we are answering a real problem people face
today from a business perspective not just a technical
stance.
A Primer or
"Getting Started" guid is a good idea, but should be predicated on the adoption
of the specification first.
2)
Complete and comprehensive Spec such that we do answer the problem that people
are facing today with a lack of transaction support in the web services arena.
This needs to be a technical spec and will be hard to understand because BTP
answers a difficult and hard problem.
Agreed
110%!
I am
really pleased about the JSR because it means we will get something tangible
for the second point. My concern has and does surround the first point. Again
I am not advocating cutting scope, changing decision, scope or anything else
simply when we review the next version lets keep point one in mind as we
review.
Thanks for the feedback and clarification - speak to you later
today.
All the best,
Mark.
---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark@arjuna.com | mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191
2064538 Fax : +44 191 2064203
|