RE: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 30 : Assume that coordinators are potentialsub-coordinators. (also issue 2)

["Cho, Pyounguk" <pcho@iona.com>]

Hi all,

    I've been wondering the closure set of the scenarios in which transaction trees can be created and evolve over the time. I guess choosing (1) makes it clear that transaction trees can be constructed in top-down manner only, not in bottom-up for now.

 

Pyounguk

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:01 AM
To: Peter Furniss; bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 30 : Assume that coordinators are potential sub-coordinators. (also issue 2)

So, we propose that answer 1) is chosen.  A Coordinator, once created by BEGIN (no CONTEXT) will be a Decider. Sub-coordinator's are created with BEGIN & CONTEXT.. There is no "late enrollment".- sub-coordinator knows who its Superior is from the beginning.

This is fine by us, but are we still letting the application enrol later? If so, we probably need to put something in the spec. as to what the implications of this are.

 

Mark.

 

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer,
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Email: mark_little@hp.com
Phone: +44 191 2606216
Fax  : +44 191 2606250