RE: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues April 9- Conformance

[William Z Pope <zpope@pobox.com>]

Some suggested wordsmithing ...

 An implementation may include multiple BTP roles, for instance
 combining Terminator and Decider.  An implementation of a role may
 be conformant while others in the same implementation are
 non-conformant.  Such an implementation is conformant in respect of
 the roles it does implement in accordance with this specification. 

=bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:06 PM
To: zpope@pobox.com; Mark Little; OASIS BTP (Main List)
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues
April 9


Sounds good.  "Interoperable" was the word used in the text I evolved this
from (see the change-marked version, 0.9.2.4), but actually non-conformant
implementations can interoperate - with other appropriately behaving
non-conformant implementations, so its a confusing use.

Does making that paragraph say:


 An implementation may implement the functionality of some roles in a
 non-conformant manner - 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.

sufficient, or does it need some further minor surgery (amplifying or
dropping the "usually ..." phrase ?) for clarity ?

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Z Pope [mailto:zpope@pobox.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2002 17:31
> To: Peter Furniss; Mark Little; OASIS BTP (Main List)
> 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>
>
>