Re: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

> >> (I have not been arguing for BTP.)
>
> > OK, maybe there's confusion there because
> > having been involved with BTP from the start,
> > when I see terms like "generic 2PC"
> > (maybe I used that term?!), "cancel", "confirm",
> > "compensation" etc. I assume BTP. But if it isn't
> > BTP, then it's yet another protocol and as you've
> > already said, we don't want to continue the proliferation ;-)
>
> When I see a series of initiatives trying to fill the same business
> transaction space (RosettaNet, ebXML BPSS, UNCEFACT BCF, BTP, WS-T,
> WS-TXM*), and they can all be united into one protocol, and the
> confusion of business transaction protocols is impeding commercial
> adoption*, I think it's time for convergence.

I agree that convergence is a good idea. But in my book that doesn't
necessarily imply a single protocol.

>
> How the convergence happens is a political issue, as you have stated.
> But (as you also stated) you didn't get the WS-T proponents to join
> WS-CAF, either.  So far, neither of us has the political strategy
> licked.  This is just discussion.

Yes. Although (and only history will tell) I think from the feedback we've
gotten from public and private supporters gives us some glimmer of hope that
WS-CAF will be able to compete well with the IBSoft approach.

>
>
> * I know each of those initiatives does more than loosely-coupled
> business transactions.
>
> ** If need be, I'll figure out how to write the details behind that
> statement without naming names.
>

One of your * should be a **. Presumably the second one?

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com

> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/business-transaction/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.
>
>