Re: [bt-spec] IMPT : Oracle Technical Submission for the BTP

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

Hi Jim,

Comments intermixed GB :

"WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" wrote:

> 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?)
>

GB : The original thread was along the lines of a precision J2EE shortcut,
however over the many many discussions internally and externally it was felt
that more value would be created moving to a more neutral stance.

>
> 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)?
>

GB : With anything, the more the application is abstracted from such changes the
better, however this must be balanced with getting the details down to make it
work.

I think the proposal is very much in the spirit of the BTP spec.

>
> 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