[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 32 - Requirement for MixedOutcome
I agree and deliberately only chose the most relevant lines for the issue list: enough to bring a casual reader up to speed. Mark. Alastair Green wrote: > I think there are numerous sections affected by this proposed change > (at least three not referenced in Mark's lineage below). > > However, I think that this detailed information is not required. There > is a big issue here, which can sensibly be discussed by anyone who has > read and assimilated the specs, and the issue of the line numbers it > affects is an editorial question which flows from the resolution of > this issue. > > Ditto for Coordinator Completion (which is even more pervasive in the > spec). > > Alastair > > Mark Little wrote: >> Section 3, lines 151-168. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> Ram Jeyaraman wrote: >>> Mark, >>> >>> Could you please provide the PDF line numbers in the referred document >>> that are relevant to this issue. Thanks. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] Sent: >>> Friday, March 17, 2006 2:55 PM >>> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 32 - Requirement for MixedOutcome >>> >>> This is identified as WS-TX issue 32. >>> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 32 -" >>> (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc.) >>> >>> =================================== >>> >>> Issue name: Requirement for MixedOutcome >>> >>> Issue type: spec >>> >>> Owner: Mark Little (mark.little@jboss.com) >>> >>> Reference documents: >>> >>> WS-BA specification: >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17203/ws >>> >>> tx-wsba-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf >>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17044/h >>> >>> ttp://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17129/wst >>> >>> x-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-04.pdf> >>> Description: >>> >>> The MixedOutcome is not tested for in the interoperability scenarios >>> (AtomicOutcome is). This either needs to be fixed, with some >>> scenarios added, or we should remove the capability. I haven't seen >>> any good arguments for why we should have this protocol within the >>> BusinessActivity specification. If there is a requirement, then it >>> seems >>> >>> more appropriate for a separate model (i.e., specification) to host >>> this. >>> >>> Proposed resolution: >>> >>> Remove MixedOutcome >>> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]