RE: Batch as a Logical Unit of Work (was "Re: [provision] Comments on Draft 8 of the Spec...")

["Bohren, Jeffrey" <Jeff_Bohren@bmc.com>]

Yes, a batch does not imply a logical unit of work. But that is not the same
as saying a batch can not be a logical unit of work. The spec needs to be
more neutral on the issue than it is now.

Another way to say it is that an RA can not request that a batch be treated
as a logical unit, but a PSP can still do so anyway. A PSP may choose to
roll back the effects of a batch and report all the requests as failures.
That is outside the scope of the spec but the PSP is free to do so.

Jeff Bohren

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary P Cole [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:48 PM
To: Bohren, Jeffrey
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Batch as a Logical Unit of Work (was "Re: [provision] Comments on
Draft 8 of the Spec...")

Bohren, Jeffrey wrote:

>
> 3.5.3.1 - ... Also change *A batch is not a logical unit of work* to 
> *A batch does not need to be a logical unit of work*. We need to 
> rework this paragraph to convey that a batch may or may not be a 
> logical unit of work, but if it is, that is outside the bounds of the 
> spec. The way it is written implies that it can not be a logical unit 
> of work.
>
I believe that we agreed (during a conference call) to specify that a 
batch should NOT imply a logical unit of work. As I recall, we decided 
that any batch that implied a logical unit of work would be defined as a 
separate capability. Rami Elron said there any batch operation that 
implied a logical unit of work would require additional parameters and 
options, and said that he might work on defining this capability.

I believe this was the same conference call in which we decided that 
batch requests must not be nested (that is, a batch request must not 
contain a batch request). I think we even put it to a vote (or at least 
asked whether anyone objected to the decision and *wanted* a vote). 
Should we try to dig up some email or meeting minutes?

I don't have any particular problem with rewording this section as you 
suggest, but I hesitate to do so without remembering why we decided on 
the current position. We *did* spend a fair amount of time and energy 
discussing this issue back then.