RE: [bt-spec] Relationship: Composer:Participant - assign to issue 65

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

Sanjay,

 

I think this can be taken under the existing issue 65: Can a composer have a participant as its immediate inferior? Is it ok to link it under that heading and get closure on that ?

 

Some of the discussion on 65 links to discussion under 62, with some extra diagrams (although 62 is up for vote this evening, the discussion thread went wider than just the names)

 

I have added links in the issues list to tie the various email threads together, under the issue 65 one. (I've only put the thread-heads in - you need to follow the follow-up links at the bottom to trace the sequence through.)

 

technical contribution will follow

 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjay Dalal [mailto:sanjay@bea.com]
Sent: 15 January 2002 15:02
To: 'Bt-Spec '
Subject: [bt-spec] Relationship: Composer:Participant

There seems to be an issue regarding relationship between Composer and Participant. I am attaching relevant discussion on mailing list. I am told that it was discussed in LC f2f but no conclusion was made. I am sending this formal request to open an issue on this topic to track it and close it.

 

thanks,

sanjay

 

Ref: mails:

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200112/msg00045.html

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200112/msg00041.html

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200112/msg00035.html

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sazi Temel [mailto:sazi.temel@bea.com]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:20 PM
To: Sanjay Dalal
Cc: Peter Furniss; OASIS BTP (Main List)
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] FW: diagrams

At 11:47 PM 12/30/01 -0800, Sanjay Dalal wrote:

Peter,
 
Thanks for the reply and comments. I have made changes as per your comments.  Please see inline for other comments. Let me know if you have any suggestion for more diagrams too.
 
Wish you and BTPers a happy, healthy and peaceful new year.
 
thanks,
sanjay
 

----Original Message-----

From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:10 AM

To: OASIS BTP (Main List)

Subject: RE: [business-transaction] FW: diagrams

Sanjay,

Sorry I didn't comment on your diagrams earlier - I think they will be really helpful, and some at least will get into the intended model section.

thanks. I hope these are also useful for primer apart from the specifications.

<snip>
[sanjay] What is the relationship between Composer and Coordinator?

[peter] Composer and Coordinator have direct S:I relation to sub-coordinator, to sub-composer and to participant

[sanjay] Sazi tells me that this was not resolved in f2f, esp. Composer-Participant and Composer-Sub-composer relationships. I understand your thinking too. I have kept the relationships at abstract level i.e. one can implement such that the same entity can play the roles of Composer and Coordinator. It means, that entity can directly talk to the Participant. In the same way Sub-coordinator and Sub-composer can be played by another entity. That way Composer-Coordinator entity can talk directly to Sub-composer-Sub-Coordinator entity.

 

[sazi] We have discussed the relationship between composer and participant at the f2f meeting. I have pointed out that Composer having a direct relationship to a participant is new in the current spec, and somehow invalidates the role of coordinator. Peter and I have given some examples of our understanding on this issue...

Although, I don't belive we have a final decision on the issue, it was an interesting discussion, we may be much closer to a final decision then it seems...

<snip>