[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 166 - Let's try it again
Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > From the perspective of the assign it should look to it "as if" it is > the only activity running. So long as the behavior of the process > provides that illusion then the process is compliant. > > As you point out the actual requirements to make this happen do not > require any grand serialization. A little strategic locking can quite > nicely handle matters. But that is an implementation specific detail. Upon further thought, and consultations with my developers, I concur. The language you propose is a) simple, and b) leaves room for "clever" implementations to add those extra "ilities" that are necessary in commercial products. > > The point is that the standards language provides a goal and then > leaves it to the implementer to figure out the best way to meet that > goal. That's why I didn't dive into the details. Thanks for indulging my appetite for details, in this brief digression. I don't think the spec needs to go any further than what you have proposed. -Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]