RE: [ws-caf] issue 123

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

Title: Message

I can't see this working very conveniently if "implementation dependant" really means Blogg's implementation does one thing and ACME's does another. Different uses (different ALS's / different ALS configurations) are going to want different patterns - it makes little sense to pass transaction contexts by reference (forces two round trips to register) while user identification/preference/profile things are likely to prefer reference.

 

Doing all this by configuration (which would be another interpretation of "implementation dependant") is gnawing at the whole point of having a standard protocol for this.

 

I'd prefer an attribute/field that said what was expected. Make it bi-valued with implementation dependant default if you like.

 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 14 April 2004 15:15
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] issue 123

http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=123

 

This is about whether begun returns a context by reference or by value. Current thinking is that it's implementation dependant. Another alternative would be to add some kind of qualifier on begin to say what the client wants.

 

Mark.

 

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
www.arjuna.com