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: [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