[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: F2F Consolidated Draft Minutes
_________________________________________________________________ Martin Chapman Consulting Member of Technical Staff Oracle P: +353 87 687 6654 e: martin.chapman@oracle.com
OASIS WS-CAF TC F2F Meeting ========================== 30 June/1July 2005 Oracle, Redwood Shores, CA, USA Roll call ----------- Martin, Greg, Mark, Kevin, Doug, Eric, Peter Furniss, Pete Wenzel. Changes since last meeting: Tony Fletcher on LOA Meeting in quorate: 8 out of 11. Scribes ----------- Kevin, Mark, Eric. Agenda approved Minutes ----------- 20th June 2005: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-caf/email/archives/200506/msg00044.html Motion to approve by Mark, 2nd by Greg, no objections. Passed. Action Items ------------------ No AI Context Interop Discussion -------------------------------------- The aim was to have a working interop demo by this f2f. There have been three people involved with the interop, John Fuller, Gary Tully and Kevin Conner. There has been no Oracle presence in the interop. John has made very good progress, Kevin has yet to finish and Gary has been off work. The plan is now to have the demo working by the next concall (18th July). The current demo only involves pass by value, pass by reference will be added later. The current demo does not exercise specific test cases, it would be useful to add this into interop. The interop should validate each specification. Work on coordination needs to start. Shouldn't delay demo for transaction. Martin: John Fuller is still Observer so we need to see about updating his status in line with his participation. Mark: What else is needed for interop documentation, are they deficient in any way? Kevin: schema/wsdl isn't, document probably is. Needs to be opened up for discussion. Only comments so far have been from John, regarding message formats. This should be added to the documentation. Context issues ---------------------- One issue, generic identification of context headers Alastair's motion is already tabled. now brought off the table for dicsusion - note chairs timed this discussion to the published agenda time. Kevin: Current motion doesn't address my reason for raising the issue Discussion about relationship with mustUnderstand, roles and processing. Greg: call to vote. Vote on motion For: 0, Against: 6, abstain: 0 Motion is defeated. Current state of context documents Mark: Context document needs a few spelling changes, schema needs one minor change. Kevin: One concern is Tony's point regarding XMLSpy/WSDL. The documents have been validated and been used to generate code using AXIS wsdl2java, no issues were found. Still need to understand the XMLSpy issue but this can be done in parallel with public review. New version of document/WSDL will be sent round for vote, then open up for public review. Coordination issues ---------------------------- Martin: Editorial to change Actual to Separate and WS-Context to WS-CF Eric: Editorial to use full name instead of acronym for WS-CAF (line 39) Greg: Editorial Interposition is not a component (line 295) Greg: motion to move interposition text to the end of 3.1 Mark: second no objections Mark: Currently using context fault codes in some cases, should we use cf specific ones? Discussion: Current use of faults is appropriate. Editorial: line 376, should use states as an example. Editorial: line 573, as per ws-context or as per the ws-context specification Editorial: Put members of the committee in the acknowledgements. Also to be done for context. List current active members with thanks to previous members. Discussion around a WS-CF interoperability demonstrator. Greg said that Oracle wanted to wait for WS-ACID before doing further interoperability because we would have to invent a protocol for WS-CF anyway. Martin said that he would prefer to have a stand-alone WS-CF demonstrator. Everyone agreed that if that route were taken, it would have to be a coordination protocol that was fairly simple, to avoid spending a lot of time and effort on it. Kevin said that he had sent an email some time ago around this subject, but was not sure about the detail. Greg and Eric agreed that it was a good approach but could not commit resources yet - need to see details. ACTION: Kevin to come up with a proposal for a stand-alone WS-CF interoperability demonstrator. End of business for WS-CF and WS-Context. Martin suggested going through the existing WS-ACID issues before tackling the specification. WS-ACID Discussion -------------------------------- Mark said that we need to remember that most of the issues date back to when the TC formed and may no longer be relevant. Issue 29 - CLOSED as irrelevant now. Issue 31 - need to address Issue 34 - editorial typo Issue 35 - editorial typo Issue 36 - editorial consistency issue Issue 37 - terminology Issue 38 - editorial Issue 39 - editorial Issue 40 - editorial typo Issue 55 - normative discussion Issue 56 - normative discussion Issue 57 - normative discussion Issue 58 - editorial Greg asked if we want to change the name of the specification. Is WS-ACID too strong? Greg made it clear that he had no strong feeling either way, only that maybe the two-phase commit component could be used elsewhere. Martin suggested WS-AtomicCoordination. Mark said that the important thing about WS-ACID was that users/developers knew the semantics of the interactions and that assisted in its interoperability requirement. Greg and Martin agreed. Mark suggested that there were two possible routes to maintaining this aspect that he could see: (i) keep with the status quo (ii) have a specification that provided only atomic outcome (factor out Synchronization) and provide the CID via policies. Eric said that interoperability with existing TP systems is the most important use case. It is the whole point of the protocol and it's where IONA are seeing client pull. Everyone agreed. Eric suggested that relaxation of the properties as Greg suggested is a different use case. General discussion ensued and it was agreed that this would be more than just a name change if pursued. Decision taken to leave as is for now. Issue 268. Mark added an issue (269) to ensure that WS-ACID boiler plate is consistent with other specifications. ACTION: editors to remove all outstanding references to ALS and anything else removed from WS-Context or WS-CF. Issue 270. Mark said that he thought there were no major problems with WS-ACID since it is just traditional TP. The WSDL/schema are out-of-date and need fixing (Issue 271), but editorial work was probably the biggest task left. Do we want to change the protocol names from two-phase commit and synchronization to something else? Everyone agreed they were good. Mark: we need to bring the faults up-to-date with the new fault model in WS-Context/WS-CF. Issue 272. There was discussion about the fact that unsolicited responses are explicitly allowed in WS-ACID, but the mechanism uses the setResponse operation of WS-CF which has now been removed. However, because the interaction pattern is based on one-way messages, we can still support this pattern. Greg asked if we could explicitly specify when unsolicited responses are required. It was agreed that the operations were only RolledBack and Prepared. Eric wanted to make sure that it was optional because some implementations may not be able to support it. Greg wondered if this might affect interoperability, but Mark said he did not think so because even if it is supported, timing conditions may mean that an unsolicited response is sent just as the actual request is being generated: the participant (in this case) would have to be able to deal with that situation anyway. Idempotent. Eric then asked if we should remove the one-phase commit optimisation because in traditional transaction processing systems having a single resource in a transaction typically doesn't require interaction with a coordinator at all. There was discussion around this and it was agreed that one-phase commit is required in a distributed environment when the transaction can span multiple machines and a priori knowledge of the participants isn't known. Change of text associated with one-phase commit: If the coordinator discovers that only a single participant is registered then it SHOULD ommit the prepare phase. There was discussion about whether we should support heuristics. It was agreed that we definitely should. Eric wondered if we should add support for isolation levels, particularly since most databases permit it. Serializable, read committed ... Mark asked if this would be via a policy? Eric said that would be one possibility. A default of assuming serializable. Greg said that not all resource managers support serializable because of the overhead. General discussion; do we go with policy or leave as is (for example, the OTS does not define isolation levels). Eric said that he preferred a policy so that it MAY be determined. Greg said that this should be purely declarative. Make a statement about the characteristics of the service to do with isolation and ensure it is composable with any policy language. Martin said that this should be expressed through a policy based language. ACTION: to agree on some text to address this Issue 273. Martin asked for the entire WS-ACID hierarchy to be described, including context and coordination. Eric gave an overall presentation. One issue arose as a result: there is no way to commit or rollback the transaction directly at the level of WS-ACID. It is tied to the termination of the underlying activity and hence the WS-Context complete message. This message allows for a status extension value to be passed, which should be interpreted by a coordinator as "roll back" or "commit". Editors to make sure that the text in the specification is clear on this. Issue 274. WS-Context revisit --------------------------- Greg moves to adopt context 0.9.2 as a committee draft. Mark seconds. Seven in favor, no objections nor abstentions. Motion carried. Let’s have a public review in case other TCs might want to consider adopting WS-Context. 15 day review cycle since it’s the second round. CF would require 60 days. Doug moves we take current context spec to public review. Mark seconds and amends (which Doug agrees upon) to submit for the 15 day review period. No objection, 7 in favor, no abstentions. (Chair notes the number of TC voting members is 11 therefore a mojority of a full TC vote was acheived) Discussion about adding an optimization to boxcar registrations for multiple resources. Optimization to messaging (i.e. fewer messages to register multiple remote resources). ACTION: Mark to write a proposal for the group’s consideration to boxcar registrations, given the room’s consensus that it appears to be a potentially useful feature. New issue discussion about asynch messaging in shared transactions. What if anything do we say about this in the spec? Is this primer material or prescriptive stuff that belongs in the spec? There is something in the OTS spec about how to model transactions in the AMI case. Should we have something? Could apply in BPEL scenarios for example. ACTION: Greg to write up a proposal for how to address the issue of asynchrony in the ACID spec. Next issue: do we intend to define policy? ACTION: Greg to write up proposal for how to address policy also – to stimulate discussion. Martin says let’s move on from ACID. Scheduling and IP. -------------------------- IP: We have enough members who’ve signed the new member agreement so that we can transition to the new IP policy if we choose to. We would have to choose between royalty free RAND and royalty free limited terms. We need to do a transition vote in the TC and get Jamie to process the formal transition request. This may have implications on members. ACTION: All members to check preferred new RF mode, to be discussed at an upcoming conference call. Logistics. Next conference call the 18th July. July 4 cancelled due to F2F and U.S. holiday weekend. Schedule: Udpate of ws-CF, a week. refactored version of ACID?July 29. Next F2F? Avoid conflicts with BPEL, ws-rx. Greg to propose a date for hosting, based on availability of meeting space etc. AOB ------- None Meeting closed Summary of Actions: ----------------------------- ACTION: Kevin to come up with a proposal for a stand-alone WS-CF interoperability demonstrator. ACTION: editors to remove all outstanding references to ALS and anything else removed from WS-Context or WS-CF. Issue 270. ACTION: to agree on some text to address this Issue 273. ACTION: Mark to write a proposal for the group’s consideration to boxcar registrations, given the room’s consensus that it appears to be a potentially useful feature. ACTION: Greg to write up a proposal for how to address the issue of asynchrony in the ACID spec. ACTION: Greg to write up proposal for how to address policy also – to stimulate discussion. ACTION: All members to check preferred new RF mode, to be discussed at an upcoming conference call.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]