This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status
of "received".
The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is
proposed and that
motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close
it without
further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".
The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the
OASIS
WSBPEL TC pages
on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most
recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list
- the next posting as a TC document will include this issue.
The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue
when it is announced, is available at this
constant URL.
Issue - R49 - Isolated Scopes
Status: received
Date added: 23 Jan 2007
Origin: Public comment Oliver
Kopp, 23 Jan 2007 (public comment list)
Date submitted: 23 Jan 2007
Submitter: Oliver
Kopp
Document: WS-BPEL 2.0 second public review text
Description: Section 12.8 reads:
The isolated attribute of a scope, when set to "yes",
provides control of
concurrent access to shared resources:
But the explanation reads:
Suppose two concurrent isolated scopes, S1 and S2, access
a common set of
variables and partner links (external to them) for read or write
operations.
The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that the results would be NO
DIFFERENT if all conflicting activities (read/write and write/write
activities) on all shared variables and partner links were conceptually
reordered so that either all such activities within S1 are completed
before
any in S2 or vice versa.
Regard the following example.
Global variable x
Scope S1: sets x to 1
Scope S2: sets x to 2
S1 runs in parallel to S2.
Then the result is not independent from the execution order of S1 and
S2.
Is there a mistake in the text?
Should it be something like following?
The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that all
conflicting activities
(read/write and write/write activities) are not executed in parallel.
The
order of execution is non-deterministic and thus the result is
non-deterministic, too.
Changes: 23 Jan 2007 - new issue
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be
accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should
automatically send your message to that list), or ensure
the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - R49 -
[anything]" or is a reply
to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an
open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - R49 - Proposed
resolution", without any Re: or similar.
To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document