Re: [ws-caf] Relationship of WS-CAF to WS-TX

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

Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I promised during the last concall to send email summarizing my 
> suggestion for continued WS-CAF work to complement work planned by the 
> WS-TX TC.
>
> I believe many of us have observed many times that the situation with 
> regard to the Web services transaction specifications is less than 
> ideal, and many of us have also discussed many times the various 
> reasons for this and events that have led to the current situation. 
> However we are now faced with the opportunity once again to bring the 
> community together or somehow act in a way that continues the split.
>
> In the ideal world we would not have had to consider what to do with a 
> dual set of specifications based on the same approach, containing some 
> overlap, and some complementary bits. However, we do not live in that 
> world. Our opportunity now is to find the best way to reconcile the 
> current situation and preserve as much as possible of the good work to 
> which we have all contributed.
>
> It is clear that WS-Context represents a new specification that 
> describes a feature not proposed or considered by the WS-TX TC. So I 
> think we can all agree that this work needs to be completed, and it is 
> on track to be completed soon.
>
+1

> I think we can also all agree that the BPM transaction model is beyond 
> the scope of anything proposed or considered by the WS-TX TC. I think 
> we also should complete this work to ensure that it is maps to the 
> WS-C specification.
>
I'm not sure if this would require re-chartering WS-CAF, but I'd agree. 
Whether WS-BP uses WS-CF or WS-C should be immaterial if we agree that 
the model is useful. It certainly adds functionality that WS-AT and 
WS-BA do not possess and would be in line with the multi-protocol 
approach of both WS-C and WS-CF.

> A concern was raided during the last WS-CAF call about the instability 
> of the WS-C specification during the coming year. The current WS-C 
> specification is very stable as specifications go, and the WS-CAF TC 
> can easily track its progress.
>
I'd also say that I think our work on WS-CF can still be useful input to 
WS-TX as the group considers WS-C. I'm not saying we need to submit 
WS-CF to WS-TX, only that the effort we put into it and the many 
discussions we had around it, could be useful when considering WS-C.

> Furthermore additional variations on the 2PC protocol and compensation 
> based protocol may be of interest to some customers, rounding out a 
> kind of “library” of pluggable protocols.
>
> Comments?
>
Plus there are several things that the WS-TX group will not be 
considering, such as heuristics and commit optimisations, that I think 
would find a suitable home in WS-CAF.

Mark.

> Eric
>
> +1 781 902 8366
>
> fax: +1 781 902 8009
>
> blog: www.iona.com/blogs/newcomer <http://www.iona.com/blogs/newcomer>
>
> //Making Software Work Together (TM)//
>

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