We can always define and disallow it per definition but it looks like an
artificial restriction... because a service can always go around it by
starting its own transaction under the cover and the main coordinator
cannot do anything, cannot even aware of this new transaction.
--Sazi
At 04:49 PM 5/1/01 +0100, Mark Little wrote:
>
>I guess I disagree. In defining the protocol we could disallow the
>registering of a sub-participant with the root coordinator. Enforcement
>at the coordinator is not entirely straightforward but possible. The
>coordinator would have to be able to associate a registration response
>(response used in a very general way here to indicate a one-to-one
>relationship) with a specific request from the initiator.
>The discussion subsequent to this point has centered around whether we
>should disallow the model of root registered sub-participants.
>
>I would have no problem at all with us stating that sub-participants can
>only register with their direct coordinator, but I don't know if we could
>get general agreement on that. However, we can always see!
>
>Mark.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Dr. Mark Little (<mailto:>)
>Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
>Phone +44 191 2064538
>Fax +44 191 2064203
>
>
