[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Summary of my commit
Hi, Yaron and others, For Issue 166, Yaron's change of text: "The assign activity is treated as if it were atomic. This means that the assign activity MUST be executed as if, for the duration of its execution, it was the only activity in the process being executed. The mechanisms used to implement the previous requirement are implementation dependent. " This text essentially implies: the "atomic" term in the text is NOT the "atomic" term in ACID. The "atomic" term is more similar to "atomic" operation from typical CPU machine instructions or traditional / transaction-unaware programming language viewpoint. If we change the text to become: "The assign activity is treated as if it were atomic. Also, the assign activity MUST be executed as if, for the duration of its execution, it was the only activity in the process being executed. The mechanisms used to implement the previous requirement are implementation dependent. " Then the implication is gone. What do you guys think? I know it's a kind of terminology nitpicking issue. I just want to make sure the edit group make a conscious decision here. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Yaron Y. Goland wrote: For issue 137 I completely rewrote section 8.1 to make it a lot more concrete and illustrative (the existing text never even used the word property) and then deleted a few sentences from 8.2 and added in some normative language around refreshing property values and assigning to non-Lvalues. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]