RE: [ws-caf] discussion on approaches for web services/ business transaction

["Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>]

Peter,

It would seem the answer is obvious, since WS-CAF takes an approach that allows multiple transaction models, BTP being one of them.  So the discussion would naturally need to focus on the best way to map BTP onto WS-CAF.  But you are also correct that this aspect of the WS-CAF work is planned for a bit later into the effort.

Our initial task is to validate the WS-CAF idea concerning the value of a separate and generic context management system, apart from transaction protocol.  I (and the other co-authors) believe there's a need to manage context other than transaction context, and that a system can be built up incrementally toward the transaction management solution.  

This would appear the starting point.  I agree with you that other discussions related to whether or not BTP might wish to change its orientation toward multi-protocol compatibility are better handled on the BTP email list.

Thanks & regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:47 AM
To: WS-CAF
Subject: [ws-caf] discussion on approaches for web services/ business
transaction


WS-CAFer's - especially those interested in seeking a good general
solution to the need for transactional 
mechanisms in the web services environment - may be interested in the
discussion thread on the OASIS
business-transaction list with the title "Public Comment" - it began
with a message on the business-transaction-comment
list
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction-comment/20031
0/msg00001.html - but archive displays
badly) from Boris Lublinsky, with a detailed response from Mark Little
and Eric Newcomer
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction-comment/20031
1/msg00000.html) and then the discussion
tranferred to the main business-transaction list (thread-head is
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/business-transaction/200311/msg0000
4.html - some of the later messages are bit mangled (my first one is
split in two), but you can probably work out what is going on.

I intend to continue the discussion (Mark left the ball in our
sub-thread in my court, I think). Since
the fundamental question in this area is whether the starting point
should be a single transaction
protocol or a large number of such, it would seem this is critical to
this group. However since ws-caf is
based on the latter assumption, and in any case the workplan doesn't get
round to transactions for a 
considerable time, the business-transaction list would seem the best
place (cross-posting to archiving lists
generally being a bad thing). BTP of course does currently take the
opposite approach, but the BT group is keen to
reach convergence in the business transaction area, and won't count
people joining the list as necessarily
agreeing.

Peter

------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd

   Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
   Business transaction management software for application coordination

web: http://www.choreology.com
email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 870 739 0066  <-- new, from 4 August 2003
mobile: +44 7951 536168