Re: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..

[Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>]

Mark, I agree that a teleconference is in order. Middle of next week would
be better for me (and either before 5pm our time or after 7pm would be even
better, given that I'll be juggling a baby at the same time :-)

No revisionist history here: WSCF was always intended to support BTP as just
another extended transaction model. So, if my colleagues in IBM continue in
that light, it should be possible for us to co-exist. We will definitely
have to see what happens when this hits a standards body though.

Mark.

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer,
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Email: mark_little@hp.com
Phone: +44 191 2606216
Fax  : +44 191 2606250


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Potts" <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark_little@hp.com>; "Cho, Pyounguk"
<pyounguk.cho@iona.com>; "Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>;
"BT - spec" <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..


Hey before we all get fired up ( just like the ebXML folks did with us
originally ) lets take a step back and look at this rationally....

This is just my perspective, and yes I did know this was coming somewhat,
but there is little difference between this spec and BTP  -
WS-Coordination is separated from the transactions types (WS-Transaction )
such that WS-Coordination can coordinate different transactions models, BTP
simply declares the transaction model being used ( atom or cohesion ) within
the context. With some changes ( minor ) on either side BTP can fit in
easily to WS-Coordination and therefore BPEL. Of course there are other
differences but on the whole anyone involved in BTP should recognise a lot
in the specs.

We (as BTP TC) should be looking to this as an opportunity for "convergence"
where we can have IBM, Microsoft, BEA, Oracle and some of us smaller minows
all back one standard. There is no definition of where this work will end up
as a standard (as yet)  but again we should encourage in whatever way we
can, those involved to take this to OASIS where we can help get WS-
Coordination and WS-Transaction "fully baked" and leverage the work
completed in the BTP TC.

I suspect the TC needs to get together on a call so at least we have a
common statement and position on this we can discuss with customers and our
companies.

Regards Mark.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Cho, Pyounguk; alex@ceponkus.org; Mark Potts; Peter Furniss; BT -
> spec
> Subject: Re: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..
>
>
> FYI this actually started out as the Web Services
> Coordination Framework
> with HP, IBM and Iona but due to some politics which I don't
> even want to
> understand, the participant list changed. (A very long and
> not so happy
> story!)
>
> Mark.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>
> To: <alex@ceponkus.org>; "Mark Potts"
> <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>; "Peter
> Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>; "BT - spec"
> <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 6:08 PM
> Subject: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..
>
>
> Hello BTPers,
>     Please, check out the following link. Finally, IBM and MS
> together with
> BEA have come up with ws-transaction spec.
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-949049.html
>
> Regards,
> Pyounguk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>