RE: [ws-caf] WS-ACID

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

Mark Little wrote:
> Haugen Robert wrote:
> >But I see that you have actually had the same experience, 
> that people 
> >want one transaction protocol to cover many types of participants - 
> >where the behavioral differences are in the participants, not the
> >protocol:
> >
> No, that talks about transaction bridging within the same model. For 
> example, JTA-to-WSAT-to-JTA. It's not JTA-to-WSBA-to-WSAT in that 
> description. Where we've seen that kind of bridging, something like 
> WS-BP is appropriate. In the more common bridging (homogeneous model) 
> then something like WS-ACID does this for us automatically 
> (and WS-AT). 

With a tweak or two, something like WS-ACID could also bridge WS-BA, and
with one tweak (fault on close), something like WS-BA could also bridge
WS-ACID.

> The text (if you read it all,) explicitly talks about implementation: 
> how you support multiple protocols is a back-end 
> implementation choice 
> and should not be reflected in those protocols.

Part of my point here is that they're not really different "transaction
models", they are mostly just differences in participant behavior. And
all of the different protocols are mostly just different names for the
same messages.

But I agree that this is the same old argument, and we will not convince
each other. 

Moving ahead, I think the climate of public opinion has shifted since
our previous thread on this same topic.

A groundswell rises against the complexity and proliferation of WS-*
specs.   

Oracle joins WS-RX TC as sponsor.

JSR158 opens another front.

I'd prefer one, but don't see how any more than two business transaction
specs will survive.