Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89

[Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>]

Comments in the usual "xml-lite" tags.

> > > Can you make your questions explicit .. I only see highlighted text ??
> >
> > It's the way that Word shows that a comment has been assigned to that
text.
> > If you move over the text the you should see the comment.
> >
>
> > >
> > > I very disappointed that you feel that I do not answer your questions
??
> >
> > Sorry, but this is just based on past experiences. If you go back over
the
> > mail archive you will see that we sent out several messages asking for
> > clarification on issue 89 between 2 and 3 weeks ago and got nothing back
> > from you.
> >
>
> [ This MUST have fallen through a hole .. as I always *try* and provide an
> answer be it verbal or written ]

<ml>OK</ml>

>
> >
> > >
> > > Always happy to elaborate .. I feel a conf call my serve as a better
> > medium ...
> > > I will be unable to make the conf call next Wednesday as I will be
with a
> > client
> > > .. therefore, please provide some suitable dates / times ....
> >
> > If it's to be a conference call then I'd prefer it to be one of the
official
> > ones. My preference is email since that is archived. I'm not too happy
about
> > discussing this (or any issue) behind closed doors.
> >
>
> [ I understand this, there is NO activity going on behind closed doors ..
I
> prefer a conf call as the medium is better for resolving disputes ]

<ml>The problem I have with a conference call is that many people on the TC
find it difficult to attend them and if we are to vote on this then we
really should try to reach the largest audience possible. An educated vote
is obviously what we would want to achieve. So, if we did a teleconference
then we would have to minute it in detail and send that round and then get
feedback from people on the mailing list and ...

And purely on a personal basis, at the moment I'm spending more than enough
time on teleconferences. Email I can do from home or anywhere.
</ml>

<ml>I'd just like to stress a couple of point again:

(i) we have never said that this functionality isn't required, only that it
may already be possible in another way and that we should take it one step
at a time: let's learn to walk as a specification committee before we try to
run. IMO the 1.0 version of the specification will be like any other 1.0
I've ever seen: people will look at it and find fault with it and the 1.1
version will be the one that most people will use. So, let's do this in a
1.1 timeframe where we have more time to carefully consider our options.

(ii) the business case you briefly outlined does look at first glance like
it could be done using interposition (subcoordination). From a protocol
point of view I'd like to see this explored to see why (and if) it doesn't
match your requirements.

</ml>

>
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > >
> > > 9pm PST works on the 25th / 29th April.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Little wrote:
> > >
> > > > Geoff, I'd be happy if you could also answer all other queries in
the
> > marked
> > > > up Word document and previous emails on this subject. They are all
meant
> > to
> > > > be constructive, despite what you may feel. As I have said time and
time
> > > > again, if you can show that this is a useful thing to do then I
believe
> > we
> > > > should consider it. However, you have not done that and perhaps that
is
> > > > simply down to mis-communication. I know that HP is not the only
company
> > on
> > > > the committee that feels the same and that others have expressed
this in
> > > > same concern in face-to-face meetings.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that you continue not to answer these real issues does not
do
> > this
> > > > issue any good. I know that we are all busy with other things, but
if
> > you
> > > > feel strongly about this issue then I hope you will find the time to
try
> > to
> > > > convince myself and others.
> > > >
> > > > Mark.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Geoffrey Brown" <Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com>
> > > > To: "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com>
> > > > Cc: "Bt-Spec" <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Brown,Geoffrey"
> > > > <GEOFFREY.BROWN@oracle.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jim,
> > > > >
> > > > > As this is a constructive request from yourself (HP) I am happy to
> > > > elaborate
> > > > > elaborate. Considering that the BTP contains a huge amount of TP
Gurus
> > > > this
> > > > > should make sense .. I hope ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue :
> > > > > -----------
> > > > >
> > > > > It is very attractive to gain "peer" level inter operability with
the
> > BTP
> > > > TM, by
> > > > > "peer" level inter operability I mean the ability of a non-BTP TM
to
> > > > collect the
> > > > > state ( on demand ) and therefore continue execution within a
> > traditional
> > > > TP
> > > > > infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > > A natural by-product of this approach is that it provides much
greater
> > > > levels of
> > > > > HA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where this comes from :
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > My experience with integrating transactional application and
> > navigating
> > > > supply
> > > > > chains ( i.e. vendors apps et al ) is that one has to "patch"
together
> > > > > transactional state across TPMs. This is a well known problem that
> > many
> > > > SIs
> > > > > face, due to limitations with TP monitors this is usually
addressed by
> > > > > asynchronous messaging. Ironically this is exactly why TP monitors
can
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > used across the web today ; I architected Oracle's Message Broker
for
> > this
> > > > very
> > > > > reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary :
> > > > > -----------
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not rocket science .. this is common sense. Bindings allow
> > > > > "client-server" inter operability only. Let me be clear that
bindings
> > are
> > > > needed
> > > > > but I feel they do not address the aforementioned problem .. *IF*
the
> > BTP
> > > > > committee want a truly *OPEN* transaction infrastructure then this
> > > > proposal
> > > > > addresses the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I propose this approach as an "optional" part of the BTP
spec -
> > for
> > > > large
> > > > > scale complex transactional infrastructures. The BTP TM should
only
> > render
> > > > its
> > > > > current state in XML on DEMAND and not for every single operation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there are any constructive alternatives please let me know as I
> > will be
> > > > very
> > > > > happy to apply these to the real-world problems that the industry
> > faces.
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just read Geoff's document and Mark's comments. Now I am
> > perfectly
> > > > > > willing to accept that I might be being naïve here, but could
> > someone
> > > > please
> > > > > > clarify for me what precisely the benefits of sharing state in a
> > common
> > > > > > format are? I can well enough see the drawbacks for myself, but
I am
> > > > rather
> > > > > > finding the benefits difficult to quantify.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't have an objection to J2EE (or any other platform for
that
> > > > matter)
> > > > > > interop with BTP, but does sharing of state (as opposed to say
> > defining
> > > > > > standard bindings at the message level) really achieve that
> > objective in
> > > > a
> > > > > > straightfoward way?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, this isn't a rebuttal to the Oracle/Choreology
suggestion,
> > more
> > > > of a
> > > > > > plea for help in understanding its value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ta.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>