Issue - R49 - resolution

This issue was resolved by the TC today
with a vote to close it with no change to the spec as explained in the
email below.     

Regards, Diane

IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

----- Forwarded by Diane
Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 01/24/2007 04:46 PM -----

Danny van der Rijn <>

01/24/2007 01:02 PM

To



cc

Subject

Re: [wsbpel] Issue - R49 - Isolated
Scopes

I believe that this issue is the result of a misreading
of the spec.  The referenced text says almost exactly what the proposed
text does:

existing: 

The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that the results would be NO DIFFERENT
if all conflicting activities .. were conceptually reordered so that either
all such activities within S1 are completed before any in S2 or vice versa.

proposed:

The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that all conflicting activities
(read/write and write/write activities) are not executed in parallel. The
order of execution is non-deterministic and thus the result is non-deterministic,
too.

The difference is only in careful wording in the spec that doesn't come
out and say that activities can't execute in parallel, only that the data
must be treated as if that were so.  It's a subtle difference, but
it allows some implementers to do some fancy tricks.

ws-bpel issues list editor wrote: 

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with
a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open"
if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by
the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration.
Otherwise it will remain as "received". 

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document
to the OASIS
WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current
edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled
in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list - the next posting as a TC
document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which
will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this
constant URL. 

Issue - R49 - Isolated Scopes

Status: received

Date added: 23 Jan 2007

Origin: Public comment Oliver
Kopp, 23 Jan 2007 (public comment list)

Date submitted: 23 Jan 2007

Submitter: Oliver
Kopp

Document: WS-BPEL 2.0 second public review text

Description: Section 12.8 reads: 

The isolated attribute of a scope, when set to "yes",
provides control of concurrent access to shared resources: 

But the explanation reads: 

Suppose two concurrent isolated scopes, S1 and S2, access
a common set of variables and partner links (external to them) for read
or write operations. The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that the results
would be NO DIFFERENT if all conflicting activities (read/write and write/write
activities) on all shared variables and partner links were conceptually
reordered so that either all such activities within S1 are completed before
any in S2 or vice versa. 

Regard the following example. 

Global variable x

Scope S1: sets x to 1

Scope S2: sets x to 2

S1 runs in parallel to S2.

Then the result is not independent from the execution order
of S1 and S2. 

Is there a mistake in the text? 

Should it be something like following? 

The semantics of isolated scopes ensure that all conflicting
activities (read/write and write/write activities) are not executed in
parallel. The order of execution is non-deterministic and thus the result
is non-deterministic, too. 

Changes: 23 Jan 2007 - new issue

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be
accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the 
list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to
that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue
- R49 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to
formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject
line "Issue - R49 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or
similar. 

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document

-- 

I'm cycling SF -> LA to raise money for HIV/AIDS.

Can you help?

http://www.aidslifecycle.org/5345