Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89

[Geoffrey Brown <Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com>]

Comments intermixed []

Mark Little wrote:

> 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>
>

[ I know the feeling - we can work quicker verbally, agree or not on the issues
then doc them ]

> [
> <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>
>

[ I am VERY open to exploring your ideas, I need this functionality in version 1
]

>
> >
> > >
> > > 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>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Attachment: Geoffrey.Brown.vcf
Description: Card for Geoffrey Brown