FW: [Fwd: [wsbpel] the last paragraph of "Default Compensation Order" section]

Not sure who is
on line, but here are my thoughts on a question Alex asked.

 

Sorry to miss
putting final touches on the spec, but I am sure you are all doing a great job
and I look forward to the final product!

 

Regards,

 

Satish

 

From: Satish Thatte 

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:48 PM

To: 'Alex Yiu'

Subject: RE: [Fwd: [wsbpel] the
last paragraph of "Default Compensation Order" section]

 

Comment on
grammar:

 

Strict reverse order of completion applied to
compensation of all scopes may be not
in depth-first order

 

Should be

 

Strict reverse order of completion applied to
compensation of all scopes may not be in depth-first order

 

As I recall, the
“consistent with” comment was relating to the openness to concurrency
of the mandated default order (subject to modeled control dependency not
contingent temporal order), i.e., the mandated default order was a partial
order.  Thus I don’t see how we can say both that it is consistent
and “which is not supported by this specification”.  But I don’t have the full
section in front of me right now.

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:24 AM

To: Satish
 Thatte

Cc: Alex Yiu

Subject: [Fwd: [wsbpel] the last
paragraph of "Default Compensation Order" section]

 

Hi Satish,

Sorry to bother you ... :-) 

We are in the middle of paragraph-by-paragraph review of the spec, in order to
wrap the spec up. We are now reviewing the "scope" chapter.
Particularly, the "default compensation order" section. We have some
questions about the last paragraph of that section

Since you are one of the transaction related experts in this TC and the
original author of the paragraph, I am wondering you think that new wordings is
a clarified verison of text without losing any real intent or creating any
unnecessary implication.

Looking forward to you reply. 

Thanks!

[ I could rely your response back in a form that you prefer. ]

Regards,

Alex Yiu

-------- Original Message --------

Here is an attempt to smooth this paragraph out: 

----------------------

An effect of Rule 2 is to permit a depth-first traversal of the lexical scope
tree for default

compensation, respecting the control dependency relation among peer scopes as
dictated

by Rule 1. Since depth-first order implies that such compensation is only
dependent on

the compensation of its nested scopes, default compensation order can be easily
defined.

The default compensation order mandated by the rules here is consistent with
strict

reverse order of completion. Strict reverse order of completion applied to
compensation

of all scopes may be not in depth-first order and require interleaving of
nested

compensations across peer scopes, which is not supported by this specification.

----------------------

(I attached the PDF and DOC version as well).

Let's see whether this text is accepted tomorrow.

Regards,

Alex Yiu