[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution
Peter, On 07-Jan-04 02:05, Furniss, Peter wrote: ... > 3. On the question of duplication of an identifer in different items, > that you mentioned in the meeting, I was thinking of adding: > > If an inferior-identifier occurs in the "inferior-identifier-list" of > more than one "Targetted-qualifiers-item", the qualifiers for all such > "Targetted-qualifiers-item" shall be included in the > PREPARE/CONFIRM/CANCEL message. Sensible. Is it worth adding the note that this merging at the receiving end (versus canonicalisation by the sender) is supported for bandwidth and readability reasons? > 4. Duplicates within the same list (of any of the various kinds of list) > - I don't think we'ed ever thought of this. It's obviously silly (i.e. a > programming error), though such a strange one that I can't imagine > anyone except a tester doing it ! In this case, I really would prefer > to leave it undefined at spec level, and not force every occurrence to > be checked. Perhaps a general statement that the behaviour is undefined > and implementations are free to ignore the duplicate or throw a General > fault. > > That's really a separate issue - do you want to raise it as such ? I believe your proposal would work and think it worth discussing this minor problem as a formal issue. Please consider the issue raised. > Peter thanx, doug >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Doug Bunting [mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM] >>Sent: 06 January 2004 19:33 >>To: Furniss, Peter >>Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution >> >> >>Peter, ... >>This is somewhat separate from the issue we discussed on the call. >>Regardless of whether unknown inferiors result in errors within the >>targetted qualifiers list, the text should cover the >>possibility of the >>same inferior identifier appearing in multiple targetted qualifier >>items. It may also be worth noting in the text that this >>option appears >>for readability or bandwidth purposes only since this >>allowance does not >>increase the possible (merged) lists of qualifiers sent to each >>inferior. One can always create a canonical list of >>targetted qualifier >>items that only mention each inferior once. >> >>A more general question: Does the current text say anything for or >>against listing the same inferior (or qualifier, transaction, >>whatever) >>multiple times in the same list? Intuitively, this >>possibility would be >>irrelevant (that is, should result in identical behaviour to a list >>without duplicates) except that an occurrence could mess up an >>implementation that had not considered the possibility. >> >>thanx, >> doug ...
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]