All,
After further private discussions on this matter, I'd like to
withdraw this suggested amendment. The wording too strongly suggests
certain implementation approaches, and in fact adds little to Satish's
proposal. In addition, those with a deep knowledge of database
implementation find the analogy to be a poor one.
Cheers,
-Ron
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
Satish,
That sounds good. I'd recommend adding an extra sentence at the
end, so that it reads (addition in bold):
"Note that serialization of variable access cannot lead to internal
deadlock in a BPEL process instance. The reason being that,
conceptually, a serializable scope is not started until it can gain
sufficiently exclusive access to all the non-local variables it needs.
This is analogous to pessimestic locking schemes used to control
concurrent access to database resources."
This language parallels that used to clarify the behaviour of
serializable scopes later in the same section.
I believe this reflects the conclusion of an email discussion we
had about serializable scopes back in October.
Regards,
-Ron
Satish Thatte wrote:
I propose that we add the following sentences to section to Section 13.6
following paragraph 2.
"Note that serialization of variable access cannot lead to internal
deadlock in a BPEL process instance. The reason being that,
conceptually, a serializable scope is not started until it can gain
sufficiently exclusive access to all the non-local variables it needs."
Satish
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
|