[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] WS-ACID
Hi Alastair. With any luck the flurry of emails I've seen (and eventually been able to reply to) will have addressed these issues. Mark. Green, Alastair J. wrote: >Hi Mark, > >I think that we should take a step back. Why are there three specs in >the WS-TXM family? Are they actually needed, or the right ones? What are >we trying to achieve/what are the underlying requirements? This is very >major phase of work, and not one to be rushed at. > >The history of this TC is that a review of fundamental >principles/model/architecture has usefully led to simplification towards >the genuinely general, both with Context and WS-CF. > >I would like to propose a full discussion of the model and principles >behind the current WS-TXM input documents and their separation of powers >at the face to face. I think I am right in saying that you have raised, >for example, the question as whether WS-TXM BP is useful as an >independent spec. > >In my view the WS-TXM specs as they stand are a very complicated way of >achieving a set of fairly-well understood goals. They also raise a >couple of interesting new ideas (or at least not so generally accepted >ideas). > >If WS-TXM is to be a useful competitor to WS-BA/AT then it should be >helpfully different (better, simpler, more functional etc). > >If WS-TXM is heading for the fate of WS-Reliability, then it might be >more apposite to seek emulation, rather than competition -- i.e. get the >capitulation over with quickly, and provide some helpful additional >features that the WS-TX TC will be able to take note of as it spits and >polishes the BA/AT specs. > >Per se, I have no objection to a legacy-adaption spec which enables OTS >vendors to respray the wire in XML colours, but I think we are jumping >ahead too fast. > >Parenthetically, it seems that the difference between ACID and AT is the >difference between OTS and OLE-Tx. > >Heuristics are quite traditional, and I suspect the lack of heuristics >wouldn't survive an open standardization of WS-AT, if/when. > >Alastair > >Alastair J. Green >CEO and CTO >Choreology Ltd >68 Lombard Street >London EC3V 9LJ >www.choreology.com > >+44 870 739 0050 >+44 870 739 0051 (fax) >+44 795 841 2107 (mobile) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >Sent: 25 May 2005 20:29 >To: ws-caf >Subject: [ws-caf] WS-ACID > >Ignoring the differences in WS-Context and WS-CAF that may impact >WS-ACID, does anyone have any issues with the protocol or model as it >currently stands? > >I can summarise the differences between it and traditional ACID >transactions if needed. If you're looking for major differences between >WS-ACID and WS-AtomicTransaction then they probably come down to: >WS-ACID uses a synchronization protocol, whereas WS-AT uses volatile 2PC > >for "volatile" pre/post commit processing, and WS-AT doesn't support >heuristic outcomes (there's an "protocol violation" error message which >isn't quite useful enough). > >Mark. > > > -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd (www.arjuna.com)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]