Re: [ws-tx] Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate' assumption

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

On 28 Sep 2006, at 02:37, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

> Presume compensate assumption has some inherent problems as  
> described below:
>
> App1 sends a DO message to App2. Coordinator (App1 site) decides to  
> forget (presume compensate since no vote has been recorded). The  
> participant (App2 site) times out and takes the presume-compensate  
> route. But it hits a snag, and sends Fail. Coordinator receives  
> Fail, but does not remember the activity anymore; so it does not  
> propagate the Fail to its superior. This is a problem.

How is this any different to a traditional participant "hitting a  
snag" if it decides to roll back in 2PC with presumed abort in place?  
Ultimately there are assumptions made through both protocols that, if  
violated, could seriously mess up the system. We have to assume that  
users/developers play by the rules and in the cases where they don't  
(much much less than the 80/20 rule), then that's something  
implementations can try to remedy if they so wish.

My preference is to go with Tom's proposed resolution at this time.

Mark.



>
> Summary: I suggest that we retain the existing presume nothing  
> assumption as represented by the current state table transitions.  
> Further, I suggest reversing the resolution to issue 71 so that we  
> revert to the text: "All state transitions are reliably recorded,  
> including application state and coordination metadata".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: Thomas Freund; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate'  
> assumption
>
> This issue is identified as 092.
>
> Please ensure the subject line "Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume  
> compensate' assumption".
>
> ________________________________
> From: Thomas Freund
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:18 PM
> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-tx] NEW Issue - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate'  
> assumption
>
>
> Protocol:  WS-BA
>
> Artifact:  spec
>
> Draft:  BA specification CD 02
>
> Link to the document referenced:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18818/wstx- 
> wsba-1.1-spec-cd-02.pdf
>
> Section and PDF line number: see proposed resolution listed below
>
> Issue type: design
>
> Related issues:
>
> Issue Description: WS-BA does not state a 'presume compensate'  
> assumption
>
> Proposed Resolution:
>
> After line 73 insert:
>
>  *   In the absence of outcome information for a transaction the  
> transaction is presumed to have compensated.
>
> State Table change:
> The state table (line 520) ParticipantCompletion/Coordinator View/ 
> Inbound Events/:
>
> {Completed, Ended} cell should be: (Send Compensate, Ended)
>
>  The state table (line 530) CoordinatorCompletion/Coordinator View/ 
> Inbound Events/:
>
> {Completed, Ended} cell should be: (Send Compensate, Ended)