W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

RE: The other concensus problem

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:02:13 -0800
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNCEGBDAAA.arkin@intalio.com>

>
> That's true, we have ignored those in the discussion.  But consider;
>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/
>
> which is a solution to the "lost update" problem, i.e. where subsequent
> rounds modify the actions of prior rounds.  Etags aren't round
> identifiers, but are state identifiers which can be used similarly.

Two questions:

- Does this observe the REST principles since it requires the introduction
of an additional HTTP header that is not defined in the HTTP specification
(i.e. at a layer above HTTP)?

- Does this observe the principle of visibility and would it better be
addressed if the additional header was carried as an XML header in the SOAP
envelope?

arkin


>
> > Just pointing out that this discussion could be elevated if we
> could look at
> > what was already researched/done rather than trying to
> re-invent the wheel.
>
> Excellent idea!  I think I'm doing just that, only not talking about it
> at that detailed a level.
>
> > Personally, I have actually implemented this stuff and I think
> it's superior
> > to traditional coordination protocols in its ability to address failure.
>
> What do you mean by "traditional coordination protocols"?  Most of the
> coordination protocols I know about are quite aware of these issues.
>
> > There's a whole class of use cases where you would want to use these
> > algorithms, and definitely a good learning opportunity for the
> WS community.
>
> Agreed!
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 17:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:13 GMT