- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:18:13 +0100
- To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>, "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
> > Is it appropriate to give pros and cons of one transaction > > protocol over another? When I mentioned WS-C and BTP I meant > > only that WS-C allows different coordination protocols > > (multi-phase) to be plugged in whereas BTP is tied to > > two-phase. That was not a statement of pros or cons, merely fact. > > > > If we go down your route then we could get bogged down in "my > > protocol is better than yours" and I don't think we should. > > Let's keep this at an abstract level. > > The discussion as a whole (not particularly your contribution) seemed to > be based on the assumptions of WS-T, and its particular patterns. That > was getting into the discussion about how to handle coordination issues > in the choreography (or rather in the process language). OK. > > Obviously a partisan slanging match is not useful, but there is a > general issue. The availability of a general registration protocol could > lead to "splitter" philosophy, where every minor difference in > implementation pattern used a different coordination protocol. That's > not to say that there aren't really different coordination patterns. > They never seem to come out into the world though. > > Not sure if we're still on topic for this list. Not sure either ;) Mark.
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 10:19:06 UTC