Hi Dominic:
So, yes, there are problems but it looks like a lot of people want to have this extra commit message. Are there any written records on the pros and cons of having the 2PC?
I think this info. is very important. Unfortunately, I am not able to address this issue. Karl or others, please respond.. Best Regards Toshi ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: Dominic Battre [mailto:mailinglists@battre.de] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:09 PM To: Toshiyuki Nakata Cc: 'GRAAP-WG' Subject: Re: [GRAAP-WG] Modification to the wiki Page on Renegotiating an established Agreement
Hi Toshi,
For that reason I mentioned the "superseded by" information that could be added to the context. A third party might need to check whether the SLA is superseded by another SLA periodically. Kind of ugly...
I see. I had been wondering what you meant by "superseded by".. It might be necessary to have a Notification sent to all the bodies using the old EPR...
Either that or to forward all requests transparently in the Agreement webservice. (i.e. if a message is sent to the old agreement it is automatically forwarded and answered to/by the new agreement).
In case of the notification, we have again the problem that the delay of delivering the notification means that some parties are unaware of the new state for some time.
AI ------ 1. please change SLA like this ------> AR 2. AR decides that it can change SLA 3. AR calculates price of modification <----------- 4. new offer ------------------ 5. AI decides whether change is worth the price --------- 6. confirmation/rejection --------->
I agree that this is more beautiful. OTOH I think that this raises the issue related to two phase commit protocol that had been discussed for a long time and in a heated manner by quite a number of people (before my time actually) and finally got rejected in the original WS-Agreement protocol.
I am a bit afraid of waking the sleeping monster, but I welcome people's comments..
Yes, I remember the discussion in Leeds. But on the other hand:
"A WS-AGREEMENT BASED RESOURCE NEGOTIATION FRAMEWORK FOR MOBILE AGENTS" by D.G.A. Mobach, B.J. Overeinder, and F.M.T. Brazier introduced the additional commit and argues why it is important.
Oliver's WSAG4J has a commit message in the NegotiationAgreement interface (I don't know whether it is required or whether it is implemented for some historic reasons).
Our Negotiation Manager implementation (online since a few days ago: https://cit-server.cit.tu-berlin.de/trac/negmgr/wiki) needs it.
So, yes, there are problems but it looks like a lot of people want to have this extra commit message. Are there any written records on the pros and cons of having the 2PC?
Best regards,
Dominic