[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 99 : PREPARE_INFERIORS andFAULT(InvalidInferior)
I was
about to put in a proposed solution on this one, then though I'd chase it round
one more time.
We are
agreed that an invalid id causes a FAULT for PREPARE_INFERIORS and
CONFIRM_TRANSACTION.
We are
agreed that no confirmation should occur if it is
CONFIRM_TRANSACTION.
new
- we need to add CANCEL_INFERIORS to the
consideration.
Mark
proposed for uniformity we should not allow any action (send PREPARE, send
CANCEL) if *any* of the inferior ids are wrong.
That's
basically reasonable, but there is no need to impose it on all implmentations.
For safety, in the confirm case, the implementation must check before it
confirms, but there is no similar requirement in the other cases. In fact, the
other two are really just packaging of "prepare-one-inferior" and
"cancel-one-inferior" allowing multiple targets. But
CONFIRM_TRANSACTION is different, as it defines a new set of inferiors that
must confirm together or not at all. An implementation could choose to
implement the prepare and cancel as strictly sequential, just working
through the list. This won't work for confrim, whcih must check they are
prepared first.
So I'd
like to suggest as I did before.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com] Sent: 22 January 2002 10:26 To: Peter Furniss; BTP Subject: Fw: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 99 : PREPARE_INFERIORS and FAULT(InvalidInferior)
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC