Let's keep turning .. I have the action to produce some form of use
case et al.
Geoff.
Dear Mark and others,
You may well have come across this interesting paper from INRIA (attached),
which motivates the need for transaction coordination mobility driven by
the desire to create client sessions which can migrate from one terminal
to another. I think this is relevant to our current discussion.
What slightly surprises me about this discussion is that it should be
so controversial to provide an optional externalization format for data
which is a simple (and obvious) derivation of the concept of a (sub)decider.
The content is old hat. What is novel is the need for it to be available
interoperably, and I think BTP could provide a service in this respect.
As I understand this from Geoff's verbal motivation at the FTF after
the OMG meeting, he sees this as a valuable placeholder for a potentially
more involved scheme, where matters such as a transmission sub-protocol
might (or might not) be addressed in the future.
I think that the elements such as domain, transport etc are particular
to Oracle's target environment, and are therefore proprietary, and should
therefore go in the "impl_data" field, or whatever the suggested free space
is.
I for one have found this notion a) unaccustomed b) stimulating and
c) somewhere between inoffensive and vital (room for vendor variation?).
Yours,
Alastair
Mark Little wrote:
Geoff and others, attached is a new
marked up version of the document. To make it easier to read, I've put
Geoffs comments within <gb></gb> and my subsequent comments within
<ml></ml> tags. Mark. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Architect (Transactions), HP Arjuna Labs
PHONE : +44 191 206 4538, FAX : +44 191 206 4203
EMAIL : mark@arjuna.com
| mark_little@hp.com