[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [provision] RE: Batch as a Logical Unit of Work (was"Re: [provision] Comment s on Draft 8 of the Spec...")
Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: >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. > > > You are right. How is this? *No transactional semantics*. Using a batch operation to combine individual requests does not imply atomicity (i.e., “all-or-nothing” semantics) for the group of batched requests. A requestor must not assume that the failure of a nested request will undo a nested request that has already completed. (See the section entitled “Transactional Semantics <#_Transactional_Semantics>”.) Note that this does not /preclude/ a batch operation having transactional semantics—this is unspecified. A provider (or some higher-level service) with the ability to undo specific operations could support rolling back an entire batch if an operation nested within the batch fails.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]