[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate'assumption
Perhaps the minutes from last meeting should help us ascertain
what actually transpired, and why the AI was closed. Thanks. From: Mark Little
[mailto: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]
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 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: 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)
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]