[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