Agreed!
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:04
AM
To: ; 'bt models'
Subject:
Re: interposition requirements
I
agree with most of the mail and as long as we can agree that the
subcordinator has the ability to either propagate its own coordinator, and
thus hide the subsequent invocations, or the root then I think this gives
the most flexibility.
As I said in one of the emails, if the application
wants to allow this then there's nothing we should do to prevent
it.
I
agree with your comments on performance with regard to the intranet example
but in a private trusted federation of services then registration back to
the root from all participants in the chain is appropriate, and even
registration to a separate transaction coordination service for the
federation of services.
Agreed, but I think that this scenario is not the
majority use-case. Even in trusted intranets I know of, there are various
levels of trust, and registering all participants with the root coordinator
won't be allowed.
It
also means that performance is better and the latency that will be evident
in "walking the tree" will avoid the possibility of failure scenarios
corrupting the coordination of the
termination.
Having interposition cannot currupt data integrity.
It introduces another failure point, but typically the interposed coordinator
is a (or hosts a) full participant in the termination protocol anyway, so its
failure will affect the outcome one way or another.
Mark.
----------------------------------------------
Dr.
Mark Little ()
Transactions Architect,
HP Arjuna Labs
Phone +44 191 2064538
Fax +44 191
2064203
