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

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

Strange, because I'd have said issue i092 doesn't cover the AI at all. Maybe I read more into the f2f minutes, but I was expecting a discussion from the AI about whether WS-BA uses (or should use) a presumed nothing or a presumed compensate model. i092 appears to indicate that a choice of presumed compensate has been made.

Can you point me at a definitive statement concerning the choice and not some unresolved issue? I'll check the minutes of the last telecon because I don't remember it coming up then, but I did have to leave about 15 minutes early.

Thanks,

Mark.

On 28 Sep 2006, at 17:54, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

Mark,

 

We agreed to close the AI during our last call, since issue 92 covers it.

 

From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate' assumption

 

To add further confusion to this ... in the minutes of the f2f is appears as though no decision was taken on presumed-nothing versus presumed-abort/compensate, but that:

 

ACTION: Ram : To submit text on presumed-nothing or presumed-compensate.

 

did that happen?

 

 

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.

 

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".

 

 

Mark.

 

 

-----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)