Re: interposition requirements

[Sazi Temel <sazi.temel@bea.com>]

We can always define and disallow it per definition but it looks like an 
artificial restriction... because a service can always go around it by 
starting its own transaction under the cover and the main coordinator 
cannot do anything, cannot even aware of this new transaction.

--Sazi

At 04:49 PM 5/1/01 +0100, Mark Little wrote:
>
>I guess I disagree.  In defining the protocol we could disallow the 
>registering of a sub-participant with the root coordinator.  Enforcement 
>at the coordinator is not entirely straightforward but possible.    The 
>coordinator would have to be able to associate a registration response 
>(response used in a very general way here to indicate a one-to-one 
>relationship) with a specific request from the initiator.
>The discussion subsequent to this point has centered around whether we 
>should disallow the model of root registered sub-participants.
>
>I would have no problem at all with us stating that sub-participants can 
>only register with their direct coordinator, but I don't know if we could 
>get general agreement on that. However, we can always see!
>
>Mark.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Dr. Mark Little (<mailto:mark@arjuna.com>mark@arjuna.com)
>Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
>Phone +44 191 2064538
>Fax   +44 191 2064203
>
>