Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Dear Mark and others,

You may well have come across this interesting paper from INRIA (attached), which motivates the need for transaction coordination mobility driven by the desire to create client sessions which can migrate from one terminal to another. I think this is relevant to our current discussion.

What slightly surprises me about this discussion is that it should be so controversial to provide an optional externalization format for data which is a simple (and obvious) derivation of the concept of a (sub)decider. The content is old hat. What is novel is the need for it to be available interoperably, and I think BTP could provide a service in this respect.

As I understand this from Geoff's verbal motivation at the FTF after the OMG meeting, he sees this as a valuable placeholder for a potentially more involved scheme, where matters such as a transmission sub-protocol might (or might not) be addressed in the future.

I think that the elements such as domain, transport etc are particular to Oracle's target environment, and are therefore proprietary, and should therefore go in the "impl_data" field, or whatever the suggested free space is.

I for one have found this notion a) unaccustomed b) stimulating and c) somewhere between inoffensive and vital (room for vendor variation?).

Yours,

Alastair

Mark Little wrote:

Geoff and others, attached is a new marked up version of the document. To make it easier to read, I've put Geoffs comments within <gb></gb> and my subsequent comments within <ml></ml> tags. Mark. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Architect (Transactions), HP Arjuna Labs
PHONE  : +44 191 206 4538, FAX : +44 191 206 4203
EMAIL  : mark@arjuna.com | mark_little@hp.com

Attachment: Mobility addin feature in OTS.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: alastair.green.vcf
Description: Card for Alastair Green