Re: [ws-caf] WS-TXM split and BTP

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

Hi Tony.

Tony Fletcher wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>  
> I guess I ought to make my position clear.
>  
> I was on the call when the TC confirmed the F2F decision to split 
> WS-TXM into three parts, one for each of the current three protocols.  
> I supported this move for the following reasons:
>  
> a)  I felt it would help us to consider the requirements for, and the 
> merits of each in turn.  I always felt that where we ended up might be 
> quite different from where we started of from, or it might not be so 
> very different - open discussion.

Agreed, and I like to think we had open discussions at New Orleans in 
that light.

>  
> b) on a more detailed technical level, TXM currently consists of two 
> levels of XML schema.  There is a common layer, then a separate schema 
> for each of the three protocols.  Looking at this I felt it was 
> unhelpful and that the bits of common schema that were really common 
> and useful (possibly a null set! - but maybe not) should be forced 
> down into CF and / or Context, and anything that remains that is 
> required by one of the transaction protocols forced up into that 
> schema.  (By the way, we really do need to find another name for CF, 
> such as WS-Reg or WS-Registration as the one thing it is not is a 
> coordination framework!)

We've already had the naming discussion (at least twice in my 
recollection, including the Dublin f2f) and voted on it, so I think this 
is something we should not re-open.

>  
> c)  Having got N protocol documents mapping onto CF/Context making 
> that N+1 by adding in BTP to the family would not look at all odd.  In 
> fact it could be considered a quite logical step.  Another 'by the 
> way':  It seems to me that BTP could be added to the WS-CAF family in 
> one of two ways.  We could produce a new complete version that mapped 
> onto CF/Context or we could produce a 'profile' document that 
> referenced the current BTP specification and specified how to use it 
> (and what was not used) and how to map it to SOAP / CF/ Context in 
> this case - in other words a deltas document.

I agree. My personal preference, assuming we agreed to add BTP support 
as one of the protocols, would be to do this via a profile mapping, as 
you suggest.

>  
> Having got to this stage, I find the previous threads on this topic 
> somewhat disturbing.  However, whilst I found Mark's brief summary of 
> the characteristics of WS-ACID as it currently stands that kicked 
> these threads of useful, I have to agree in essence with Alastair that 
> perhaps we should now take a step back and say what are the 
> requirements that WS-ACID and indeed the whole 'WS-TXM' suite are 
> trying to meet?

I think we've taken a sufficient step back for WS-ACID already, as 
evidenced by the New Orleans f2f discussions. We agreed firstly that a 
directed protocol approach ("micro protocol", "one protocol per problem 
domain", or however we want to describe it) would be the way to tackle 
this problem space. We then agreed that interoperability with existing 
TP systems is a requirement. Hence the WS-ACID protocol as it was 
submitted to the TC would be the foundation on which we would tackle 
that particular requirement. If there are problems with the WS-ACID 
protocol as it stands with regards to how it might be used to do this 
TP-bridging/interoperability, then we definitely need to address them as 
we move forwards.

>  
> If end up back again at four protocols to meet all the different 
> requirements then I for one would be reasonable happy.  If we are able 
> to produce a single, converged protocol that meets the requirements 
> then I would be even happier!

I understand, but I'm sure we've already agreed on the approach to take.

All the best,

Mark.

>  
> Best Regards     Tony
> A M Fletcher
> Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
>  tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com>    
> amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org>       
> (also tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com 
> <mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>)
>  
>  


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