RE: multiparty (was) Fwd: Re: message routing

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

I was composing an answer to this, and then John Yunker's message came 
through and did it better.  Not only is he smart, but he types fast 
too.  What he said.  :)    Jamie

At 11:34 AM 7/26/01, Timothy Collier wrote:
>You problem you get into with the automatic decomposition of multi party
>collaboration into multiple two party collaborations is the control issue.
>* * *  Later, if things change, they must provide and undo/cancel.  This 
>may be appropriate for many/most situations, but some businesses may have 
>a problem with the churn of their inventory * * * (not even getting into 
>the malicious use * * *).
>If a multi-party interaction were possible then, the permanent changes would
>not be applied until all of the participants agreed.

PS  Obviously there are software vendors, and perhaps proposed standards, 
very focused on two-phase commits and rollbacks.  But they often seem to be 
one-trick ponies.  I am more interested in handling this issue as one 
specific application of a more flexible tool set -- which is what ebXML and 
UMM are about, and what John is doing very nicely in his answer.