[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [business-transaction] Sazi's discussion
Hi Sazi, all, you have brought up an interesting point. One that should not simply be brushed aside in order to get a specification out. I agree that the parts of an atom have a different relationship to each other than parts of a cohesion. In an atom we started with the premise that the parts had an intimate relationship to each other and gauranteed that an atom would either confirm or be cancelled as a whole. [This was part of the original scope, so nothing has changed here.] A part of an atom cancelling whilst undergoing the confirmation phase is very different from the case of heuristics in a traditional 2PC transaction. [Subordinate sends CANCEL after having sent PREPARED.] In the case of heuristics in 2PC, the heuristic participant is obliged to record the fact that it is contrary to the outcome of the transaction and maintains this in a log such that an adminstrator can rectify the matter in some way. With participant cancelling in the way it is at the moment, the parts of an an atom can be inconsistent with the outcome of the atom (contrary to the basic premise we started with) and worse still there is no record that this is the case at the subordinate. When an external administrator attempts to reverse a part of an atom to get the entire atom to a cancelled state in order that another may replace it, there is no evidence available to the subordinate to show what is doing other than reneging on an agreement. An interesting point is that the evidence is needed at participants which have not themselves cancelled. I do not pre-suppose a particular resolution to this problem, however I do believe strongly that this is a fundamental issue with the protocol which *should be discussed* and *should be resolved*. Trying to rush through a specification with blinkers on without discussing and resolving issues arising is to my mind a recipe for disaster. What is the old adage: "decide in haste, repent at leiusure!" So Sazi, I believe you have raised an interesting an very valid point (that does not change the scope of the specification)! We should not drop this point in order for a quiet life - we will all regret it later if we do so. We should discuss it now and try and resolve it. Regards. Keith S. Weir -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Have you downloaded the latest calling software from Net2Phone? Click here to get it now! http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=NH211JK&url=http://commcenter.net2phone.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC