[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment
>> (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 ;-) When I see a series of initiatives trying to fill the same business transaction space (RosettaNet, ebXML BPSS, UNCEFACT BCF, BTP, WS-T, WS-TXM*), and they can all be united into one protocol, and the confusion of business transaction protocols is impeding commercial adoption*, I think it's time for convergence. How the convergence happens is a political issue, as you have stated. But (as you also stated) you didn't get the WS-T proponents to join WS-CAF, either. So far, neither of us has the political strategy licked. This is just discussion. * I know each of those initiatives does more than loosely-coupled business transactions. ** If need be, I'll figure out how to write the details behind that statement without naming names.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]