Re: [ws-caf] RE: Checked transactions

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

>ISSUE E. Is the enlistment vectorization optimization worthwhile?
>  
>
Yes.

>ISSUE F. If E = yes, then should E be addressed by a general message
>vectorization or concatenation mechanism, or by one specific to E?
>  
>
Specific. See proposed text.

>ISSUE G. If B = yes, and E = yes, is there a connection via bundling of
>some kind to allow communication of a vector of enlistments in
>conjunction with the CHECKED semantic?
>  
>
As the text suggests, there may be tying to be done within the checking 
arrangements we support (up to Referencing Specifications).

Mark.

-- 
Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
www.arjuna.com