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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

business-transaction message

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


Subject: Re: Boxcarring and its implications (was Re: Open-top coordinators andprotocol)


[stuff deleted - similar to what I said earlier on how the OTS can behave
w.r.t. interposition]

> The requirement to run both the application and btp messages down a single
> pipe (which was expressed by several in the Boston meeting), pretty much
> requires boxcarring.

I disagree. It does not *require* boxcarring, it only makes it possible. As
I have said in numerous emails, we are not against it, only against it being
required (and I believe Sazi/BEA have expressed a similar view). As soon as
you do not have S/P co-located (you now seem to be implicitly arguing for
co-location, which was HPs position in the first place at Boston, but
apparently not the majority's) then this single-pipe doesn't work. There are
then two services S and P residing in different address spaces and they talk
to their interested parties (I and C respectively) down different pipes.

Are you now saying that S and P must reside in the same address space? If
the answer is yes then:

(i) I agree that boxcarring of *certain* messages is possible (see previous
emails).

(ii) I'm not convinced we want to impose that co-location requirement.

> And, per the earlier discussion, one-shot without
> boxcarring

Agreed.

Mark.

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com)
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Phone +44 191 2064538
Fax   +44 191 2064203




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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC