[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues April 9
OK. I still don't think it is clear though. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com> To: "Mark Little" <mark_little@hp.com>; <zpope@pobox.com>; "OASIS BTP (Main List)" <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:14 PM Subject: RE: [business-transaction] Email votes - 7 Issues - Ends Tues April 9 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Issue 87: Conformance Level > > > > > > -------------------- > > > Proposed Resolution > > > > > > Change the second and third paragraphs of the conformance section to: > > > > > > An implementation may implement the functionality of some roles in a > > > non-interoperable way - usually combining pairs of roles, such as > > > Terminator and Decider. Such an implementation is conformant in > > respect of > > > the roles it does implement in accordance with this specification. > > > > Isn't this a bad choice of words since we've always said that > > there are many > > roles in the specification, but they don't need to be played by a unique > > actor for each? Why should this affect conformance? An actor can (and > > should) be allowed to perform more than one role without affecting the > > conformance of an implementation. > > The paragraph was meant to mean that an implementation that, for example, > used a library approach, rather than a coordination hub server, was "fully > conformant" - avoiding the phrase "partial conformance". It is fully > conformant in what it does (assuming it does those things right), and it is > nobody elses business how it does other things. It is a full citizen in the > BTP world, as a Superior and Composer (say), even if the Factory cannot be > distinguished within it. > > I'd understood (and I hope the spec says) that an actor is approximately a > process (or perhaps an object instance - it's really defined by the > addressing), whereas an implementation is something you get on cd or > download. Within an implementation, once running, there may be all sorts of > actors, or just one, and that is orthogonal to which roles those actors > perform. > > > Peter >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC