[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)
Agreed, but
if the driving force behind this is a workflow engine, for example, then
compensations may already be in place via other inferiors that haven't been
prepared yet. We should not be writing a specification on "loosening
transactional capabilities" that requires an implementation (or user) to
conform to a specific mode of operation.
But doing
nothing in the first place keeps the system in a state that is easier to deal
with from that failure point. I don't know if you are arguing from an
implementation stand-point or purely from a conceptual point of view, but I
really don't see why you would want to argue that, in the case of an error in a
received parameter, an implementation of a cohesion should carry-on regardless
and do the work on the other inferiors before returning an error. It doesn't
make sense. Better to do nothing in the first place and let the sender deal with
the parameter list in the knowledge that nothing happened at the
coordinator.
Mark.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC