terminology

Last night we discussed some terminology again, and (amongst the 3 of us 
who were there) seemed to reach some agreement. I said I'd email the results of 
the discussion:

 

(i) there definitely seems to be a need for a terminator actor as well as 
an initiator. In many cases the initiator and terminator may well be colocated, 
but that need not be the case (e.g., I begin a BT, but pass control of it to 
someone else to determine whether it should commit or rollback in my 
absence).

 

(ii) the idea of a conductor instead of coordinator was discussed. The 
conductor term isn't used in this domain as far as we can see, and may help to 
remove some confusion, especially if people use an ACID transaction system in 
collaboration with the BTP.

 

(iii) rather than distinguish between a participant who is a subordinate 
conductor, we should probably just say that that's an implementation choice for 
the participant, i.e., as far as the conductor is concerned it sends a prepare 
message, and what the recipient participant does to come up with the return 
value is up to it.

 

(iv) cohesion sounded OK to those involved, though I think Keith was going 
to see if he could come up with something else.

 

(v) atomic group is overloaded terminology too, tending to imply group 
communication using, say, atomic multicast or virtual synchrony. Atomic 
unit?

 

Mark.

 

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little ()
Transactions Architect, HP 
Arjuna Labs
Phone +44 191 2064538
Fax   +44 191 2064203