RE: [ws-caf] WS-ACID

["Haugen Robert" <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>]

Mark Little wrote:
> As I've said on several occasions though: we've had experience of 
> selling (to customers, partners and analysts) a BTP product and a 
> product based on the "micro-protocol" approach. It was nearly 
> impossible 
> for the former, even with (or is that despite?) the HP 
> publicity machine 
> in full swing. The latter is a different matter: people just 
> "get it": 
> you get the separation of concerns, the core competency, the 
> dedicated 
> solution without impact on others, the leveraging of existing 
> infrastructural investments (IMO this is critical to the 
> uptake of any 
> solution in this area, and is why we should concentrate on WS-ACID 
> firstly), ...

My anecdotal "evidence" says exactly the opposite.  Not that people ask
for BTP or any of the other candidate BT specs, but that they want one
protocol and API for all transactions, period. In particular, they want
to mix and match old-school (e.g. XA) and new-school (e.g. WS)
participants in the same transaction tree, with the same coordinator.