Satish Thatte wrote:
>Assaf, if the issue was partnerLink visibility limited to a local scope
>it would be trivial. But that is the only situation where you can have
>'each locally scoped partner link is assigned a unique endpoint
>reference'. All the examples I have seen justifying this idea also
>require lifetime semantics, i.e., multiple copies of a locally scoped
>partnerLink could exist, held, e.g., in corresponding compensation
>handlers. Now the situation becomes much more complex as Frank pointed
>out earlier.
>
>
Then let's try and tackle it.
The spec already has to deal with lifetime semantics of locally scoped
variables and correlation sets. Let's assume that partner links are
another type of scoped variable accessed (read/write) like any other
locally or globally declared variable. That would cover the lifetime and
access semantics. The spec also handles the case where multiple partner
links are based on the same partner link type. We can extend that to the
myRole EPR of a locally declared partner link (i.e. unique EPR in each
scope).
What other problems are we going to run into?
arkin
>Satish
>
>
