[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] IMPT : Oracle Technical Submission for the BTP
Geoff: Thanks for posting round the document, I am sure that if there were any uncertainties as to where you were coming from that they have all been dispelled. I do have a couple of minor questions, if you'd oblige? i) Why is this thought of as a J2EE shortcut, when it appears to be quite neutral? (Are we sharing XML with something from J2EE?) ii) Can this kind of behaviour not simply be hidden away behind a particular party's border? Since state transfers must happen between trusted parties, from the point of view of an external caller nothing seems to have changed. And since (I think it was the Choreology guys) quite early on we branded BTP as an "interoperation" protocol where we're mostly interested in what goes on the wires between parties, then does this still fit with the spirit of the spec(if you agree with the preceeding statement)? Jim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC