[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May 28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)
Shouldn't we really defer these discussions and possible resolutions until after the issues reslution process has been put in place? Martin,. > -----Original Message----- > From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:42 AM > To: Satish Thatte > Cc: Assaf Arkin; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; edwink@collaxa.com > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for > May 28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face) > > > Satish, > > Surely this is only important if there are dependencies. I'm assuming > if they are - they are deferred dependencies, so they can be > resolved by a later step, as either critical, or non-critical. > > We should be able to draw on parallel processing microprocessor > theory here to provide mechanisms to control this? > > DW. > ======================================================== > Message text written by "Satish Thatte" > >So you are saying that there are four scopes that complete in > non-deterministic order and two of them have commutative compensations and > two don't? > > And what would be the proposed solution? Annotating the commutative > compensations to say <may be run in whatever order i.e. > concurrently>? How > would you invoke them (assuming they have parameters)? What if the > commutative ones must be run concurrently but after the non-commutative > ones? > < > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]