[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] ORACLE BTP Issues
Geoff, I know that Pete has assigned these
individual issue numbers but it's a lot easier to address them in your original
email. Hopefully the committee can do the mapping when we consider the issues
separately.
I think this is in line with what we've
been discussing. However, since I haven't seen or heard any explicit activity in
this area I don't know what work, if any, has been going on already. There was
discussion about having cohesions at a different conformance level to atoms, and
I don't have a problem with that. As long as all of the conformance points occur
within the same specification.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reduce". Are
you assuming we would have separate specifications? As I indicated above, we
would prefer a single specification.
Depends what you mean by "long running
transactions". At last count there were over half a dozen protocols that would
fall into this category.
As above, I don't have a problem with this
as long as the various conformance points are in the *same* specification. I
can't remember if we have discussed how many conformance levels there would be,
but it should definitely be a small number.
Sorry, I don't quite understand the "more
precise short-circuit". Since the JSR hasn't begun, aren't you pre-supposing how
the work will go?
At this point we're not defining any of the
end-point participant mappings. BTP is protocol agnostic and for a good reason.
If we add JMS specific information to the core protocol then what's the argument
for not going a few steps further and adding support for CICS, Tuxedo, JTS/JTA,
and other "popular" transaction protocols? Surely this is something that we can
address at a higher level and at a later point in time.
Are you suggesting that we enhance the
specification with more diagrams? If so, then I'd agree: anything that increases
the readability and understandability. In the past we've found UML to be useful
in this respect.
First of all let's steer clear of tying BTP
to any one programming language or its support infrastructure. Just as we do not
know which distribution protocol will be used (SOAP over HTTP, IIOP,
carrier-pigeon) we don't know which languages will be used. I am against saying
something along the lines of "BTP implementations must use JNDI".
At present we haven't specified how the
application and cohesion are coupled. This does have portability implications
but goes back to the first face-to-face we had in Mt Laurel where some people
were worried about what BTP was going to specify. I agree that simply saying
that the cohesion has X, Y and Z "interfaces" (i.e., messages it can accept) and
leaving it to a vendor to say how an application can use it is not as useful as
it could be. However, I think this is something that we can better address once
we have experience of using BTP, i.e., in a subsequent version. I've said this
before, but I'll say it again: I think that many more issues will come up once
people actually start to implement and adopt the specification. Experience is
everything here. And you never know - people may find that cohesions simply
aren't what they want anyway, and the "standard" conformant versions will take
over the world.
Agreed.
There will always be outstanding issues.
JMS isn't a perfect standard either. Neither is the JTS, and that's been going
for nearly 10 years. If we look at your double-digit issues and see which are
actually show-stoppers then I don't believe they will be in the double-digits
any longer. I agree that we shouldn't push through to adoption a specification
that is broken and unimplementable. However, I don't agree that we should make
sure that all i's are dotted, and all t's are crossed before we go to
adoption.
Mark.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark@arjuna.com | mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2064538 Fax : +44 191 2064203 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC