RE: [wsbpel] Issue 79 - Proposed Resolution

yes 
thats great, go for it (maybe next TC, so it was enough time for everybody to 
read it)

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd 
Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER 
AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: 
+49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto: - http://www.seeburger.de 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 
  5:23 PM
To: 
Subject: [wsbpel] 
  Issue 79 - Proposed Resolution

Section 13.6, first 
  paragraph, currently reads:

  When the variableAccessSerializable attribute is set to 
    "yes", the scope provides concurrency control in governing access 
    to shared variables. Such a scope is called a serializable scope. 
    Serializable scopes must not be nested. A scope marked with 
    variableAccessSerializable="yes" must be a leaf 
  scope.
The final sentence should be modified such that the 
  paragraph should read a follows:

  When the variableAccessSerializable attribute is set to 
    "yes", the scope provides concurrency control in governing access 
    to shared variables. Such a scope is called a serializable scope. 
    Serializable scopes must not be nested. A scope marked with 
    variableAccessSerializable="yes" must not contain other 
    serializable scopes, but may contain scopes that are not marked as 
    serializable. In the latter case, access to shared variables from within 
    such enclosed scopes is controlled by the enclosing serializable 
  scope.
    This, I believe, reflects the 
  consensus we arrived at discussing this issue on the e-mail list. Comments and 
  suggestions for improvements are always welcome.

Best 
  regards,
-Ron