Satish,
I think we just wanted to make sure that from a serialization aspect the
scope was a leaf scope (not necessarily a real leaf scope).
Cheers,
dieter
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Satish Thatte" |
| | <satisht@microsof|
| | t.com> |
| | |
| | 10/22/2003 07:49 |
| | PM |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: "Ron Ten-Hove" <> |
| cc: <> |
| Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues? |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I actually cannot recall why we have banned all nested scopes inside
serializable scopes -- I will check. The reson for banning nesting of
serializable scopes themselves is to avoid requiring any nested locking
scheme for implementing BPEL. Loosening the leaf restriction doesn't seem
to help though since the fault would presumably occur upon exiting the
serializable scope and therefore would be handled in one of its fault
handlers, which we already allow. What were you thinking of proposing
there?
By custom code I meant fault handlers that would somehow (no idea how) cope
using business process logic.
________________________________
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:]
Sent: Wed 10/22/2003 7:16 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
