[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]