bt-spec message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 68 : (sub)coordinators,(sub)composers with no inferiors
- From: Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>
- To: bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:00:43 +0000
BTP Issue 68 : (sub)coordinators, (sub)composers with no
inferiors
Category: minor technical
Submitter: Pyounguk
Cho(Pyounguk.Cho@iona.com)
Detail: Is it possible to have
(sub)coordinators or (sub)composers as inferiors when they have no
inferiors?
Proposed Remedy:
(sub)coordinators and (sub)composers
should be delisted automatically when all of their inferiors have resigned.
Assuming the btp interoperable control protocol is used to create the
sub-coordinator, sub-composer, then they will be initially be things
enrolled with the superior (making them sub-*) but of course no inferiors.
They won't get any inferiors until they get an enrol. It is already
defined whether they are atomic or cohesive (at BEGIN
time).
If we
aren't using the interoperable control protocol, all that is externally visible
is the enrollment of the new actor as Inferior to the existing
superior, followed, at some point, by the presence of the new CONTEXT
(marked as atomic or cohesive) in relation to some outbound application
message. In fact, it is impossible by external observation (i.e. line
tapping) alone to determine that this new CONTEXT is from a
sub-co* .
If all
the inferiors resign during the active phase, then we definitely hang around as
there may be new enrollments. If all inferiors return RESIGN in response to
PREPARE (or when it is known by other means that there will be no more
enrollments), then the sub-co* should itself issue RESIGN to its superior.
(That could be regarded as how "delisted automatically" is implemented in the
protocol perhaps.)
Peter
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC