New Issue: WS-AT: Is Completion protocol mandatory?

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Issue name -- WS-AT: Is Completion protocol mandatory?

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL 
THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.

The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.

Target document and draft:

Protocol:  WS-AT

Artifact:  spec

Draft:

WS-AT CD 0.1 uploaded

Link to the document referenced:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17325/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf

Section and PDF line number:

l. 146, Section 4.2, "Completion Protocol", and
l. 171, Section 4.3, "Two-Phase Commit Protocol"


Issue type:

Design / Editorial


Related issues:

New Issue: WS-AT: Only root coordinators can accept Completion protocol 
registrations


Issue Description:

WS-AT spec could be taken to imply that Completion protocol required to 
engender User Commit internal event. Use of Completion protocol should 
not be mandated.


Issue Details:

ll. 176-177  read: "Upon receiving a Commit notification in the 
completion protocol, the root coordinator begins the prepare phase of 
all participants registered for the Volatile 2PC protocol."

This is an example of how the state table internal event User Commit can 
be engendered. An implementation could use an API method (rather than an 
interoperable message) to engender User Commit (truly make it an 
"internal event").  


Proposed Resolution:

a) Add a sentence after the existing sentence ending "... it should 
attempt to commit the transaction" (l. 159) that reads:

"Receipt of this notification generates the 2PC Coordinator View state 
table internal event User Commit."
 
b) Add a sentence after the existing sentence ending "... it should 
abort the transaction" (l. 162) that reads:

"Receipt of this notification generates the 2PC Coordinator View state 
table internal event User Rollback."

c) Add a sentence after the existing sentence ending "... a decision to 
commit" (l.166) that reads:

"The action Return Committed in the 2PC Coordinator View state table 
engenders the transmission of this notification."

d) Add a sentence after the existing sentence ending "... a decision to 
abort" (l.169) that reads:

"The action Return Aborted in the 2PC Coordinator View state table 
engenders the transmission of this notification."

e) Replace the sentence at the very end of Section 4.2 "Completion 
Protocol", l. 170, which currently reads:

"Conforming implementations must implement Completion.", with the following:

"Conforming implementations MUST implement the Coordinator role in the 
Completion protocol (i.e. be prepared to receive Commit and Rollback, 
and to send Committed and Aborted), but need not implement the matching 
Initiator role. Applications/implementations may use this protocol to 
signal application termination requests to a coordinator, or they may 
use an implementation-defined mechanism to stimulate the 2PC Coordinator 
View internal events User Commit and User Rollback."

f) Amend the first sentence of Section 4.3 (l. 171) to read:

"Upon the internal event User Commit (which may result from receiving a 
Commit notification in the completion protocol) a root coordinator 
begins the prepare phase of all participants registered for the Volatile 
2PC protocol."