Re: [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Peter,

On 07-Jan-04 02:05, Furniss, Peter wrote:
...

> 3. On the question of duplication of an identifer in different items,
> that you mentioned in the meeting, I was thinking of adding:
> 
> If an inferior-identifier occurs in the "inferior-identifier-list" of
> more than one "Targetted-qualifiers-item", the qualifiers for all such
> "Targetted-qualifiers-item" shall be included in the
> PREPARE/CONFIRM/CANCEL message.
Sensible.  Is it worth adding the note that this merging at the 
receiving end (versus canonicalisation by the sender) is supported for 
bandwidth and readability reasons?

> 4. Duplicates within the same list (of any of the various kinds of list)
> - I don't think we'ed ever thought of this. It's obviously silly (i.e. a
> programming error), though such a strange one that I can't imagine
> anyone except a tester doing it !  In this case, I really would prefer
> to leave it undefined at spec level, and not force every occurrence to
> be checked. Perhaps a general statement that the behaviour is undefined
> and implementations are free to ignore the duplicate or throw a General
> fault.
> 
> That's really a separate issue - do you want to raise it as such ?
I believe your proposal would work and think it worth discussing this 
minor problem as a formal issue.  Please consider the issue raised.

> Peter
thanx,
	doug

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Doug Bunting [mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM] 
>>Sent: 06 January 2004 19:33
>>To: Furniss, Peter
>>Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Issue maint-9 - proposed solution
>>
>>
>>Peter,
...

>>This is somewhat separate from the issue we discussed on the call. 
>>Regardless of whether unknown inferiors result in errors within the 
>>targetted qualifiers list, the text should cover the 
>>possibility of the 
>>same inferior identifier appearing in multiple targetted qualifier 
>>items.  It may also be worth noting in the text that this 
>>option appears 
>>for readability or bandwidth purposes only since this 
>>allowance does not 
>>increase the possible (merged) lists of qualifiers sent to each 
>>inferior.  One can always create a canonical list of 
>>targetted qualifier 
>>items that only mention each inferior once.
>>
>>A more general question: Does the current text say anything for or 
>>against listing the same inferior (or qualifier, transaction, 
>>whatever) 
>>multiple times in the same list?  Intuitively, this 
>>possibility would be 
>>irrelevant (that is, should result in identical behaviour to a list 
>>without duplicates) except that an occurrence could mess up an 
>>implementation that had not considered the possibility.
>>
>>thanx,
>>	doug
...