[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: questions from today
There's a difference: in a nesting
relationship begin is accompanied by a context. Simple enough.
2) Are the protocol identifier, ALS configuration identifier, etc. all the same thing?Yes, he's right (damn ;) The ALS-configuration identifier is the type attribute in the context. I've been calling it protocol-type for a
while until I realised it's just called type in the context. I think the rule
for begin (assuming we keep the ALS-configuration id - but renamed)
is:
(i) if this is a new top-level activity (no
parent), then begin is parameterized with the protocol-type.
(ii) if this is a nested activity, then begin is
parameterized with the protocol-type and a context accompanies the begin
message.
3) Should "web service operations performed" be changed to "web services operation invocations" in the first sentence.Which text? If it'll make him go away, then no
;)
4) If the ALS is an optional implementation technique, does it make sense to expose it in the application interoperability layer (ie, what's in the context should be independent of how the ALS is configured).It's an option for the "context service", but that really exists as two logical entities: the context manager (the thing that returns the context either via getContext or for begin operations), and the context augmentation manager (!), which provides a way for services to plug into the "context service" and augment the context (!) 99% of users will use the context manager, and that doesn't expose ALS information. We should augment the text in the specification to make this distinction clearer if necessary. I think if we call it protocol-type and
then wrap that with appropriate words in the specification that relate it to
different services (that may or may not be implemented using ALSs) then we're
fine.
5) the diagram appears to have a mistake: should the context and the activity identifier be related in a bi-directional one to onerelationship? Maybe there's confusion as to what Context is in the diagram. It's meant to be an element in a context structure (hence the nesting relationship it has with itself). So, with that in mind, a context element has exactly one activity identifier associated with it. An activity identifier is associated with exactly one activity (and hence one context element). So the diagram seems right to me. Tell me about it!
Mark.
Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]