Re: [wsbpel] Issue 67 - Proposal for vote (restated)

["Goran Olsson" <goran.olsson@oracle.com>]

I'm a bit confused here. Why should the specification how a certain concept
is implemented?
Should it not just say " Note:that serialization means that serializable
scopes will not deadlock."?
I would have assumed that it is up to implementors to use whatever mechanism
they decide to ensure this.
Thanks, Goran

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>
To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:38 AM
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 67 - Proposal for vote (restated)


As Ron wrote, the extra sentence he proposed adding led to some
potential confusion about implications for implementation.  He has
withdrawn his suggestion.  I would therefore like to simply restate my
proposal in its original form as the current proposal for a vote.

I propose that we add the following sentences to section to Section 13.6
following paragraph 2.

"Note that serialization of variable access cannot lead to internal
deadlock in a BPEL process instance.  The reason being that,
conceptually, a serializable scope is not started until it can gain
sufficiently exclusive access to all the non-local variables it needs."

Satish



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.