Re: [ws-caf] WS-ACID

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

I think that just goes to show that "one size doesn't fit all".

Mark.


Haugen Robert wrote:

>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.
>
> 
>  
>

-- 
Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
(www.arjuna.com)