Re: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - 2 proposed resolutions

[Joseph Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>]

Ian Robinson wrote:
>
>
> Max and I have been working on some options for resolving issue 030 [1].
> There has been a lot of good discussion on this issue already; we have
> suggested 2 (different) concrete resolutions that we can discuss on the
> call.
> Proposal 1 is closer to the status quo; it retains the use of the
> wsa:ReplyTo MAP for non-terminal notifications but adds a requirement for
> terminal notifications to set wsa:ReplyTo to 'None'.
>
> Proposal 2 replaces wsa:ReplyTo with wsa:From to further emphasize that
> protocol message are never replies. This proposal also classifies WS-TX
> "faults" raised during the agreement protocols (e.g. 2PC) as terminal
> notification messages.
>
> Proposal 1 (Issue30_Propsal_1_WSAT.doc)   (See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_1__WSAT.doc)
>   

Minor editorial comments:

Inconsistent reference to 'none' in two AT proposals.

Proposal 1, line 19: 'None'

Proposal 2, line 18: 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none’;

Independent of what proposal is accepted, an explicit decision should be 
made to
purposely be generic or to purposely be specific. 'None' seems too 
generic, it
should be augmented by a reference to WS-Addressing defining the 'none' uri.

> Proposal 2 (Issue30_Propsal_2_WSAT.doc)   (See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_2__WSAT.doc)
>
> For either of these proposals, we believe WS-Coordination simply needs to
> remove text that is already stated in WS-Addressing:
>
> (See attached file: Issue30_Proposal__WSCOOR.doc)
>   
Just an observation.
WS-AT proposals specify relevant sections of ws-addressing specification 
and ws-coordination reference is more general.

-Joe
> [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/issues/WSTransactionIssues.xml#i030
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
> STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
> IBM Hursley Lab, UK
> ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
>