Re: [ebxml-bp] Clarification - FORK and BusinessTransaction

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

Sorry guys , Im in a why mood today;)

Dale Moberg wrote:

>A lot of this functionality is not yet needed for designs, and possibly
>never will find a niche. But we do need to allow RequestResponse BTs
>where, after the Request, but before the Response, there is another
>Transaction. The refactor part 2 certainly allows this and builds on the
>ideas of onInitiation in earlier drafts.
>  
>

Could you elaborate on why there is a need for more levels? Why not 
break the transaction into two transaction, one for request and one for 
response?

>We need to establish that atomicity is compatible with subtransactions.
>  
>

Could you elaborate on why this is need?

Could you elaborate on your definition of atomicity?


>We may wish to have some WF rules for UNCITRAL forms that mandate
>certain interfaces of superordinate BT with subordinate BT. We should
>definitely allow some time Monday to discuss atomicity and
>subtransaction, if you are able to be on the call. 
>  
>
Could you elaborate on why there is a need for more levels? Why not use 
what we have?

/anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone:  +46 8 562 262 30          /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////