----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:45
PM
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Re:
This Thursday's teleconference
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