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

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

Procedurally, I think issue 92 *does* introduce a discussion on
presumed-nothing vs presumed-cancel. We will resolve this issue one way or
the other and hence resolve presumed-nothing vs presumed-cancel.

Ram has outlined some reasoning [1] for prefering presumed-nothing, and his
proposed resolution is referenced below. For the reasons Ram describes, I
agree that clearly stating in the BA spec that the BA protocols are
"presumed nothing" protocols would be the best outcome for this
discussion/issue.

[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200609/msg00080.html

Regards,
Ian



                                                                           
             Ram Jeyaraman                                                 
             <Ram.Jeyaraman@mi                                             
             crosoft.com>                                               To 
                                       "'Mark Little'"                     
             28/09/2006 23:04          <mark.little@jboss.com>             
                                                                        cc 
                                       "ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org"        
                                       <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>        
                                                                   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]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:00 PM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 092 - WS-BA: specify 'presume compensate'
assumption

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)