Re: protocols to bind to

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Sanjay,

I'm not convinced that we need exactly once semantics. The conventional 2PC with
presumed abort does not require exactly once, and I'm not sure that we should
stray very far from that protocol model. Of course, that will be driven by the
outcome of the models/requirements discussion.

Alastair

Sanjay Dalal wrote:

> James,
>
> In addition to bindings, we also have to list requirements as far as
> reliable messaging is concerned. Naturally, we will need tighter qos such as
> exactly once which can withstand network link and node failures. This will
> become more clear once we have transaction model defined.
>
> sanjay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@bowstreet.com>
> To: <bt-messaging@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:59 AM
> Subject: protocols to bind to
>
> > As discussed on the conference call...
> >
> > Let's put together a list of possible bindings. To start, let's not worry
> > too much about pros and cons, just get some ideas out there.
> >
> > The next step can be to assess the suitability of each of them.
> >
> > James
> >
begin:vcard 
n:Green;Alastair
tel;cell:+44 795 841 2107
tel;fax:+44 207 670 1785
tel;work:+44 207 670 1780
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.choreology.com
org:Choreology Ltd
version:2.1
email;internet:alastair.green@choreology.com
title:Managing Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;13 Austin Friars=0D=0A;London;;EC2N 2JX;
fn:Alastair Green
end:vcard