Re: interposition requirements

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

Mark,
Looks like we agreed on most of the issues here! Lets read Peters doc
(requirement doc), I am sure it will further clarify the issues. 

Regards, 
--Sazi

At 10:44 AM 5/2/01 +0100, Mark Little wrote:
>> >Not sure which Mark you mean, but I'll take a stab at it: first I don't
>> >see that the participant and the sub-coordinator have to be different;
>>
>> Per f2f definitions a service and a participant are different interfaces
>> (they may be the same entity - implemantation detail) , a service has a
>> business function interface while a participant has a BTP interface.
>
>That's fine. I was talking about the participant and the sub-coordinator,
>not the service.
>
>>
>> >  if a participating web service wants to propagate the context to other,
>> > back-end (for example) web services then as well as doing it's own work
>> > when it's told to "prepare" it sends this message to those back-end
>> > services, i.e., it acts like a sub-coordinator.
>>
>> It simply invokes a new service (depending on the context the
>> sub-coordinator of service invoked may register with the root coordinator
>> or with our sub-coordinator.)
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Whether the service invoked implements both a business service interface
>> and a BTP interface depends on the implementation but as far as BTP
>> concerened there is an interface to coordinate the transaction, it might
>be
>> the service it self - we don't know.
>
>Yes, various people including myself have been saying this for a while.
>
>Mark.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com)
>Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
>Phone +44 191 2064538
>Fax   +44 191 2064203
>
>
>
>
>