Re: [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Peter,

After reading through this alternative solution, I see that the original 
proposal disallows an unknown inferior identifier in the qualified 
inferiors list.  In the alternative, an error results only if the base 
inferior list contains an unknown inferior -- not one of the inferiors 
identified in the targetted qualifiers list.  Was allowing unknown 
inferiors in the inferior identifier lists within the targetted 
qualifiers list intentional?

This is somewhat separate from the issue we discussed on the call. 
Regardless of whether unknown inferiors result in errors within the 
targetted qualifiers list, the text should cover the possibility of the 
same inferior identifier appearing in multiple targetted qualifier 
items.  It may also be worth noting in the text that this option appears 
for readability or bandwidth purposes only since this allowance does not 
increase the possible (merged) lists of qualifiers sent to each 
inferior.  One can always create a canonical list of targetted qualifier 
items that only mention each inferior once.

A more general question: Does the current text say anything for or 
against listing the same inferior (or qualifier, transaction, whatever) 
multiple times in the same list?  Intuitively, this possibility would be 
irrelevant (that is, should result in identical behaviour to a list 
without duplicates) except that an occurrence could mess up an 
implementation that had not considered the possibility.

thanx,
	doug

On 06-Jan-04 07:31, Furniss, Peter wrote:

> I had some further thoughts on this and a discussion with Robert Clarke 
> here, and I think this second solution might be better. It has a 
> separate list of targetted qualifiers, so there isn't confusion about 
> what happens in an Atom, and its easier to send the same qualifier to 
> several inferiors.
>  
> Also uploaded, as :
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/4894/maint9_alternative_solution.doc
>  
> As well as being simpler (probably), I've remembered to make the changes 
> to PREPARE_INFERIORS this time.
> What I haven't remembered was to make the corresponding changes in the 
> XML, but that just works out fairly mechanically. (Alex is rather more 
> than a mechanic, though :-)
>  
> By the way, OASIS have just upgraded their document server and it is a 
> *lot* faster now (i.e. it's actually usable)
>  
> Peter
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Furniss, Peter
>     *Sent:* 06 January 2004 13:56
>     *To:* business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution
> 
>     Happy New Year to all BTP-ers.
>      
>     As requested by the last BT TC meeting (and apologies for not doing
>     before), I've drafted some text as a solution to maint-9, about
>     qualifiers for particular inferiors on CONFIRM_TRANSACTION. Since it
>     includes several changes to the explanatory paragraphs for C_T which
>     were clearer using change-marking, I've uploaded it as a Word document :
>      
>      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/4891/2004-01-01.maintissue9_solution.doc
>      
>     (that's the public uri, so you won't need your OASIS username/pw to
>     get at it.)
>      
>     Peter
>      
>     ------------------------------------------
>     Peter Furniss
>     Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
>     web: http://www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
>     email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
>     <mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com>
>     phone: +44 870 739 0066
>     mobile: +44 7951 536168
>