Re: [business-transaction] BTP Vs WS-xxx

[Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>]

Seems like a good high-level summary of some of the differences. I'd also
add:

5a) BTP is almost complete and implementable

5b) WS-C/WS-T isn't

There are differences between the two specifications as you point out. The
real question to ask is whether these differences are because the
specifications aren't (yet) complete or is it because they are aimed at a
different set of use cases (business model)? No one would ever say that the
BTP committee has addressed all issues related to business-to-business
interactions (taken a good stab at it yes, but a complete solution?) If
there are business reasons for why the protocols are different then that's a
worthwhile thing to know and take into account. I think what I'm trying to
say is that at the moment it's not possible to say one protocol is better
than the other.

Mark.

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer,
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Email: mark_little@hp.com
Phone: +44 191 2606216
Fax  : +44 191 2606250



----- Original Message -----
From: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>
To: "'OASIS BTP (Main List)'" <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: [business-transaction] BTP Vs WS-xxx


> Hi all,
>
>     Here are some comments from Ricky Ho. I am sure some of you have met
> him. He has a lot of good insights. Would like to hear your thoughts.
>
> Cheers
>
> I've observed some differences between the BTP model and the
> WS-Transaction/Co-ordination.  While I think  BTP is more sophisticated.
> WS-transaction has taken out some powerful features (maybe they want to
> make thing simpler).  Can you give me some feedback ?
>
> 1a)  In BTP, the transaction termination protocol is based on a 2-phase
> interactions and pretty much the same for both atomic transaction and
> business transaction.
>
> 1b)  In WS-Transaction, the transaction termination protocol are
> significantly different between "atomic transaction" and "business
> activity".  While terminating an atomic transaction is similar to BTP,
> terminating a business activity is NOT based on a 2-phase interaction
> protocol at all.
>
> 2a) BTP allows the participant application to make its commitment either
> when it is invoked, or at a later stage when it is explicitly asked for
> "prepare".
>
> 2b) In "business activity", WS-Transaction requires the participant
> application to make its commitment when it is invoked.  So that the
> "prepare" phase of transaction termination is not required.
>
> 3a) BTP has the concept of "COHESION" which allows the initiator to
> select a final subset of participants to commit.
>
> 3b) WS-Transaction doesn't seem to have the "COHESION" concept.
>
> 4a) BTP has the concept of "conditional commitment" by letting the
> participant application to associate a timeout value in the "prepared"
> response.
>
> 4b) WS-Transaction doesn't seem to have the "conditional commitment"
> concept.
>
> Comments ??
>
> Rgds, Ricky
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>