[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 67 - Proposal for vote (restated)
I'm a bit confused here. Why should the specification how a certain concept is implemented? Should it not just say " Note:that serialization means that serializable scopes will not deadlock."? I would have assumed that it is up to implementors to use whatever mechanism they decide to ensure this. Thanks, Goran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:38 AM Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 67 - Proposal for vote (restated) As Ron wrote, the extra sentence he proposed adding led to some potential confusion about implications for implementation. He has withdrawn his suggestion. I would therefore like to simply restate my proposal in its original form as the current proposal for a vote. 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]