[Mark Potts] Geoff, Mark, Jim - Hi!
Mark,
Apologies .. I retract the comment about missing questions, find the
spec attached with answers to your comments ( annotations ). This
supplements the other email threads.
BTW - Don't feel you have to justify your position with vague comments
like .. " 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" .. I would expect the other participants to
openly express their opinions in a constructive manner, I have very thick
skin and an equally open mind. I feel the proposal I have made stands on
it's own merits.
As far as I am aware they have. However, you are certainly correct in
that it would be good to hear from others on this subject. [Mark
Potts]
Ok
I am I am sure it is me being discussed as the cloaked third party
here!
There are
others, but I'd prefer to close that part of this topic now.
I
have not entered the foray as yet, since voicing my objection at the
f2f, because 1) I have been at the WS-I for last 3 days and am behind
in e-mail terribly 2) was waiting for the use cases that
determine/define this features so I can look at it in detail and bounce the
concepts and see if our contacts see a need, have pain or could benefit
from this. I was asked at the f2f to wait, in voicing objections, until we
had this document and then discuss the appropriateness of the proposal
- now I have the docs and details I will be reading them
today.
On
a less specific point, I have stated for a long time now that there are some
things I believe would add real value to the spec (we needed to look at SOAP
Intermediaries and SOAP routing, SOAP Referral because of a cases
similar to Geoff's ) however I have been told NO repeatedly, justified
by concerns that we cannot increase scope and the spec has to be finished
and put out there. As a committee we all agreed to not only
close scope but close issues last month and while I think Geoff's
suggestions would be good to look at in terms of future work I think its
exactly that - future work.
Agreed,
though that shouldn't come as a surprise given the emails that have flown back
and forth.
My
concerns with these issues run a little deeper in that, during the last
month or two, the spec is being driven by the concerns of a number of
companies now specifically regarding their product direction and needs.
Again
agreed. We've held off on adding anything to the spec. at this late stage that
might be seen as product related and we're quite happy to continue to do
that.
The spec should not be driven this way. If I could take you back a
month or 5, there were certain accusation about made about BEA in the past,
regarding product direction driving the spec, when they tried to
de-scope and simplify! The spec HAS
to be driven
by problems the industry is facing, and in my mind specifically
transactionality for Web Services, although I agree the bindings could be
expanded to support other type of
scenarios.
Also your comment " The fact that you continue not to answer these
real issues does not do this issue any good " ... Other than a
decent use case requirement, which is well justified, I feel that I have
answered ALL your questions ..
With the last 2 emails you have certainly begun to answer those
questions. And for that I'm grateful. [Mark
Potts] Agreed I think I see more clearly now what Geoff is
defining in terms of need - that however does not mean it has to be
included in the scope of the spec at this time - or it could if deemed
IMPERATIVE.
The
discussion that has started to take place over the last day or so has definitely
been useful in beginning to clarify what the problem is, but it's still a long
way off defining what the solution should be. If it has taken us this long to
get to this stage then who knows how long it will take to come to a resolution.
Should we delay the spec. just to get issue 89 in? I'd prefer not to. I'd also
prefer not to have to vote on it just in case the vote is no and it gets dropped
*and* it turns out to have been a useful thing
afterall.
now if you accept them or not is a different matter ... One could also
say that I was warned your resistance was to be expected for many reasons
.. and no doubt from the same sources you refer to. I will naturally let
these sources speak for themselves rather than use them as a justification
for my position.
We (HP) are not in a position that having Oracles support on BTP is so
important that we will bend-over backwards to accomodate all isues you may
say you require. That's not the way this committee has worked in the past
and just because we are close to finishing I don't think we should change.
All I am asking for is a good use case and a strong reason for why this
should be added *now*. If you read back through all of the emails I have
sent on this subject you will see that I have never said we should not
discuss this or that it shouldn't be added; only that it should be discussed
*in detail* and deferred to post 1.0 because there is a lot more required
than just state serialisation. Not having this in the 1.0 specification will
not affect its take-up IMO, but having it in in a potentially broken form
may make it harder to correct later (note, I am *not* saying that the XML
we've seen is broken or anything, only that if this is rushed through we run
the risk of missing important things that may be required to accomplish what
you want.) This all seems reasonable to me. [Mark
Potts]
I
sort of agree with Mark here as per my last set of comments
- What happens if IBM decide to join the party tomorrow and add their
take on transaction and the WSTx - do we change the spec again to
accommodate their concerns too! Oracle bring great value to the effort and
credibility to TC but we need to get something
closed.
The longer
we wait, the greater the chance that BTP will lose relevance. We're already
starting to see this with IBM and MSFT. We are seeing this with some customers
who now could care less about BTP compatibility. Once we have a standard we can
at least point to it as *the only* standard out there. We can't do that as
yet.
Mark.
And .. " I know that we are all busy with other things" .. as I
mentioned to the group - I am at the whim of Oracle's 4th Quarter and at the
scheduling of the BTP calls ... I do my best - period. I am truly sorry that
I can not make HP's FTF, however I have noted that we are both presenting at
NextWare (May 20-23) yourself on "transactions in a web services model" and
I on "GRID infrastructure" so hopefully we can finally meet F2F.
I look forward to it.
Anyway, keep it professional and not personal .. we all want the
same thing, a BTP that is valuable.
I hope so too.
Mark.
Geoff.
Geoffrey Brown wrote:
Mark,
Can you make your questions explicit .. I only see highlighted text
??
I very disappointed that you feel that I do not answer your questions
??
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 ....
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>
> > >
>
|