I'm having difficulty sorting out what this means -
nothing particularly to do with transactionality, just whether two orderings are
consistent
given a structure of scopes (with
flows)
A
B
C
D
E
F
and start- -end times for the
scopes
a- b- d- c- e- f- -e -c -f -d -b
FAULT
then showing the start
end of the compensation handlers, doesn't depth first do
b- c- -c -b d- f- -f e- -e
-d
but strict reverse is
oh - exactly the same (since I can't complete
B.compensationHandler without doing
C.compensationHandler.
How about adding at the end of the consistent sentence,
and putting "would" in the last:
"The
default compensation order mandated by the rules here is consistent with strict
reverse order of completion within scopes at one level. Strict reverse order of completion
applied to compensation
of all scopes may be not in depth-first order and
would require interleaving of nested
compensations across peer scopes, which
is not supported by this specification.
Peter
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:]
Sent: 04 May 2006 07:55
To: wsbpeltc
Cc: Alex
Yiu
Subject: [wsbpel] the last paragraph of "Default Compensation
Order" section
In the last paragraph of "Default Compensation
Order" section, we have seemingly have two phrases that are seemingly difficult
to be jelled together:
"... Rule 2
is to permit a depth-first traversal ..." and
"default
compensation order mandated by the rules here is consistent with strict reverse
order of completion, but not in depth-first order ..."
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
