OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bt-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89


 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89

Comments intermixed <gb>

Mark Little wrote:

  
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
 Comments intermixed []

Mark Little wrote:

 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.
 
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.
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 I think you are in isolation here.

Fine, we shall see if we ever get to a vote.
First off, I am not asking anyone to bend over backwards ( ooh eerr ) .. and if anyone is under the illusion that I am they are mistaken. You have missed the core caveat that is in this proposal .. it is OPTIONAL ..
And you have missed the core point of pretty much every email I've sent on this subject: whether or not it is optional, it should only be added to the specification after we have had a chance to consider it in all of its detail. If we had begun to discuss this significant change in January, say, then I think it would be possible to say that it should be in 1.0 (assuming it passed the vote); however, for whatever reasons it's only just come into the view of the entire committee. I would have thought you would want this carefully considered before we vote on it; that's all we're saying

<gb> No, Mark the point considering the proposal in detail has never been lost this I consider is all part of the process </gb>

<ml>OK. At some point (and fairly soon I'd expect), simply because I assume this issue is open, we as a committee either need to decide to postpone it (and I'd expect you would have more of a say in that) or vote on it. Now if you don't think sufficient time has been spent exploring the issue would you consider postponing rather than risk have a no vote?</ml>

.

I do indeed want this in the spec, as I think it addresses a major interop problem and thus is attractive to our collective customers.
We have quite a lot of customers for HP-WST and not a single one of them has asked for this. That's not to say that they won't eventually (though I'm still not sure), but by that time we will be well into the 1.x timeframe.
Now if I instisted that every vendor HAD to implement it - then that would be unreasonable, however I am not.
But if it is not well thought out then adding something that is potentially broken (again, I'm not saying it is, only that if we rush it through we might miss something that is needed) will screw up the specification. The BTP spec. has taken 12 months to get to this stage and we've spend many weeks on lots of issues to try to iron the out now rather than find them when people actually come to implement. Let's not throw that away now by adding something (anything, not just this) in haste. I've said to various people on the committee that HP have several things we'd like to see added to BTP but we have deliberately not mentioned them just now in case it delays the specification further.

<gb>  I think we are all in agreement on this </gb>

<ml>Great, so I would assume that this means the answer to my question above is yes?</ml>
  
 
Yes, Oracle was late to the party, but at least we are here. This to the best of my knowledge is the only major issue that Oracle has. Step in my shoes Mark - I am asking Oracle to bend over backwards to support this spec. And the proposal I put in has value and I am not dictating to anyone.
I don't think we're at odds here on Oracle believing there is value here. Great. (If it's based on a business case then I'd love to see it so we can show it to our sales guys too ;-) We've never said "remove the issue", only "defer it until 1.1" and give us all time to consider it. Is that unreasonable?

<gb> From my viewpoint, as this proposal is not a major change, (we) see no point at all in defering it to 1.1 </gb>

<ml>It is a significant change. It requires us to agree on a serialisable form, to determine what the mechanism for getting the state is (e.g., what's the message set extension?), to agree when this message can be sent, what are the security implications, ... </ml>
 
<ml>BTW, I'm not sure if this has been made clear before, but we are not arguing against this proposal from an implementation point of view - for us, implementing this facility as it currently stands would be trivial. But that's not the point - we still wouldn't have interoperable answers to all of the above questions.</ml>
  
 
This is a version 1 - ticket item. I am not going to drop this one Mark, I feel it is to important ]
And we'll continue to disagree. We have many customers using (essentially) version 1.0 and they don't miss this feature. And they are not using BTP in a simple manner. However, as I said above, that's not to say they won't ask for this later, but if (and when) they do I'd much rather have a solid story for them in the BTP specification than something that may not be as well thought out as we'd like.

<gb> It would be inappropriate for I to comment on what your particular customers want and what their thoughts are. </gb>

<ml>Agreed, but are you saying you have customers now who want to export from Oracle's implementation of BTP (I'm assuming there is, or will be, one) to HPs to XYZs? I'd find that hard to believe since this is such a new area *and* there's only one implementation out there at the moment. Give it a few more months and there may be more implementations but I still don't expect to see such an "export/import" requirement then. If it happens, I'd assume it will be years down the line when these implementations (or others) have really got some use and are becoming more prevelant. By then, we will probably by way past 1.0.</ml>
 
Cheers,
 
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.
[ it is a fact ] 
Good. All the best, 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

 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>
> >
> >



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC