Re: [ws-caf] discussion on approaches for web services/ business transaction

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

> > There are good reasons for having specific protocols and against
> generic ones
>
> Sure. Tightly-coupled internal transactions...

Now who's being extreme - this is certainly *a* reason but is neither
necessary nor sufficient.

>
> > and on occassion vice versa.
>
> Loosely-coupled external transactions, especially spanning different
> companies.

Same as above.

>
> > You could propose a protocol to be included in WS-TXM
> > (even BTP I suppose) that accomplished the things you want to see.
>
> As I explained to you previously, my purpose is not to promote BTP, but
> to promote convergence to one unified business transaction protocol for
> loosely-coupled transactions.

We have the same goals, but as we (some WS-CAF authors) have already
mentioned this does not necessitate a single business transaction protocol
in our opinion. "Convergence" does not imply any specific number. I'm sure
you and I had this exchange on the BTP list and you agreed to that point?

> (Or at least an exploration of the practicality of a unified protocol.)
>
> The BTP list happens to be one place where I meet people who are
> interested in the same goal.

No comment.

>
> If WS-CAF explores some use cases, it might happen here, too.

It might. Alternatively, it might not, given the use cases we've already
explored and the feedback (from prospective users as well as implementers)
that we've had. Only time will tell of course.

Mark.

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

www.arjuna.com