W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Global view requires transactions (RE: Use Cases )

From: Bob Haugen <rhaugen@speakeasy.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:54:06 -0500
Message-ID: <006801c31e59$8d36b040$6601a8c0@PC1>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>

Ricky Ho wrote:

> I think the "shared state" in this context means "shared visibility"
rather
> than "transactional update".  In other words, it is OK to have one
role
> just update its state unilaterally and communicate that result to
relevant
> partners.  Of course for certain business-specific process, the state
> change may need co-ordination among partners (e.g. how do I know my PO
has
> been accepted).

Those are exactly the kinds of state changes I have in mind.
A PO is an offer to buy. Acceptance forms a contract.
State changes to a contract need to be agreed upon
by all parties to the contract.  Call it what you will:
transaction, coordination, synchronization, agreement...
it's too common and critical to code adhoc every time.

Shared visibility would be true for a REST model
where all partners could GET a representation
of the current state of all shared resources.

Otherwise, all you got is messages over the wire
and maybe an agreed state chart.

The business transaction models I cited arose
from those situations:  contracts between partners,
agreed or standardized state chart, state changes effected
by message exchange in a set pattern.

They're related to but not the same as private
local transactions.

I'm not advocating a particular solution in this message.
Just raising the issue.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 18:56:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT