RE: [bt-spec] URI issue subquestion #2

["WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com>]

Peter:

> We believe a migrating entity should have a name which is 
> invariant over all its migrations.
> We believe it is a bad idea to allow an entity to change its name.

This is a risky strategy. Imagine you have two transaction servers, A and B
which provide fail-over fault tolerance for one another. Both are running a
single transaction (for the sake of simplicity) and both have chosen the id
"1" for those transactions (perhaps they are the first transactions to be
run).

Now imagine server A crashes and server B being available takes on its
workload. It can't create another transaction called "1" because it already
has one, which means that you can't always assume that the names you pick
will be globally unique (unless you use some kind of qualifier in
association with them).

I guess you could mandate that an identifier is a GUID which means that
name-crashes would be very unlikely?

Jim