[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
I can see how presume-compensate can work, but all I want at this
stage is an agreement. I had originally thought that, given i071 and
i088, we'd decided on presume-compensate and i092 (or rather Ram's
follow up to it) was a discussion to change it.
On 29 Sep 2006, at 10:48, Ian Robinson wrote:
> Procedurally, I think issue 92 *does* introduce a discussion on
> presumed-nothing vs presumed-cancel.
Well we can agree to disagree: my definition of "discussion" involves
more than a line of text ;-)
> 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.
Presume nothing is always guaranteed to be the right/defensive way to
go. From an implementation perspective we can support both. From a TC
timeline perspective I'd rather not waste too much time discussing
it, which was really the gist of my initial response to Ram.
Mark.
>
> [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)
>
>
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]