Re: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

> > If we just look at WS-T only one of the protocols
> > is really meant to run in a loosely coupled
> > Web Services environment: Business Activities.
> > So we would expect that trading partners would
> > interact only via this.
>
> Wow!  That was a very short negotiation-to-agreement!

Hey, when you're a company the size of IBM or MSFT I think "agreements" are
easier to achieve (or force) ;-)

I didn't mean to imply that BAs were the standard interaction pattern, only
that the specification (and WS-TXM has the same) defines something that is
assumed to be the main way of interacting in loosely-coupled environments.

> I would be very happy to standardize on WS-T BA,
> because loosely coupled trading partners
> is all I really want to do.
>
> (I have not been arguing for BTP.)

OK, maybe there's confusion there because having been involved with BTP from
the start, when I see terms like "generic 2PC" (maybe I used that term?!),
"cancel", "confirm", "compensation" etc. I assume BTP. But if it isn't BTP,
then it's yet another protocol and as you've already said, we don't want to
continue the proliferation ;-)

>
> However, once you get loosely-coupled trading partners transacting
> successfully, you may find (as I have) that lots of internal
> interactions are also essentially loosely-coupled trading partners.

It's true that things like BA, LRA or BP can be used internally, but "pure"
TP-to-TP interactions which are concerned with interoperability aren't. I
like the anaology of using the right tool for the right job and don't think
I'll be buying an hammers that also double as screw drivers and chainsaws
any time soon, even if they could do the job. This isn't an attempt to take
the argument to an extreme, only in that just because something can be done
in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean it should be done that way. So,
although I could use BA for TP-to-TP interactions, I probably won't want to.

Anyway, nice to continue the discussion.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com