Re: [bt-spec] Possible xml for btp node state

[Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>]

This is for what reason? I certainly don't want the specification to tie my
hands as to how I serialise and deserialise my state internally.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark_little@hp.com>; "BT - spec"
<bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Possible xml for btp node state


> Mark,
>
> Yes, it was a bit veiled, and since you weren't able to be with us at the
> Redwood City f-t-f, there is more of the context missing.
>
> The following includes elements of hearsay, so should be taken only as my
> current understanding :-)
>
> The remaining issue (89, from Oracle), can be addressed by including xml
> specification that allows a btp actor to be transferred from one system to
> another, in some way. Geoff Brown has been hoping to provide some draft
text
> for this but has been snowed by other stuff.  I am not fully aware of all
> the details of the requirement, but it did seem that defining an xml
> serialisation of the state of a btp node (i.e. cooordinator, composer,
> sub-coordinator, sub-composer, participant) might be a useful component of
> this. In editting the section in the normative text on persistent
> information to take out the bits that were now in the model, I found I was
> left with a text description of this information, and with Tony's help
we've
> made a draft of the xml definition.  The cryptic remarks about "not
anything
> other than a Choreology suggestion" were because I didn't want to claim
that
> it was the answer to issue 89, because I wasn't sure enough about the
> details of that. But I did mention it at the conference call, and people
> asked us to make available what we had.
>
> Peter
>
>