RE: Some more diagrams for the model..

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

Sazi,

Re your simple protocol diagram.  What happens to service2 ? Or is part of
the diagram missing (for me, at least).

Is it possible for the work of (on) the two services to get different
results (confirm one, cancel the other) ?  The original BEA proposal
inferred this was (I think - remembering, not checking in my haste) , but
referred to this as withdrawing.

Are your actors (especially the sub-coordinator) representations of the
static capability to handle the cohesion protocol or the instance involved
in a particular one. You have two registrations of sub-coordinator to
coordinator, but only one terminate reply - is this reply then structured to
say which of the registrations are cancelled, which confirmed ? Or would
there be a separate withdraw instruction for a cancelled registration ?  The
former (at least) would make the coordinator : sub-coordinator protocol
similar to the cohesion outcome protocol that Alastair's last message talked
about, rather than the atom-level protocol in our main document. The neat
thing about the atom level protocol is that you can use it to do the
cohesion things, but the service/participant/sub-coordinator side need know
nothing about it (more precisely, does not need to implement anything
special to be involved in all sorts of different cohesion structures).

------------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Choreology Ltd

email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 20 7670 1679
direct: +44 20 7670 1783
mobile: +44 7951 536168
13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX>