[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues April 9
I think you are both agreeing in concept. This change is meant to say that an instance may implement a BTP role A in a conforming way, implement another BTP role B in a non-conforming way, and still be considered conforming with respect to role A. I think would be better to use "conformant" rather than "interoperable" because that's what this section is talking about. Using "interoperable" obscures the point. =bill -----Original Message----- From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:14 AM To: Mark Little; zpope@pobox.com; OASIS BTP (Main List) Subject: RE: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues April 9 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Issue 87: Conformance Level > > > > -------------------- > > Proposed Resolution > > > > Change the second and third paragraphs of the conformance section to: > > > > An implementation may implement the functionality of some roles in a > > non-interoperable way - usually combining pairs of roles, such as > > Terminator and Decider. Such an implementation is conformant in > respect of > > the roles it does implement in accordance with this specification. > > Isn't this a bad choice of words since we've always said that > there are many > roles in the specification, but they don't need to be played by a unique > actor for each? Why should this affect conformance? An actor can (and > should) be allowed to perform more than one role without affecting the > conformance of an implementation. The paragraph was meant to mean that an implementation that, for example, used a library approach, rather than a coordination hub server, was "fully conformant" - avoiding the phrase "partial conformance". It is fully conformant in what it does (assuming it does those things right), and it is nobody elses business how it does other things. It is a full citizen in the BTP world, as a Superior and Composer (say), even if the Factory cannot be distinguished within it. I'd understood (and I hope the spec says) that an actor is approximately a process (or perhaps an object instance - it's really defined by the addressing), whereas an implementation is something you get on cd or download. Within an implementation, once running, there may be all sorts of actors, or just one, and that is orthogonal to which roles those actors perform. Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC