Issue 47: Timeout while locking
Issue 56: Communication failure issue
Issue 57: Getting the thread ID in a non-transactional lock request
Issue 58: Freeing of locks at the end of a transaction
Issue 59: Coordinator remembering LockCoordinator
Issue 60: Input values for "which" arg of non-trans. LockCoordinator
Issue 61: Using local thread identification for concurrency
Issue 576: Purpose of related LockSet
Issue 577: Which model should ConcurrencyControl support?
Issue 578: Who is responsible for releasing locks in transaction?
Issue 47: Timeout while locking (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: If the ORB times out while LockSet::lock() is being called, how does the client know if the lock was granted or not?
Resolution:
Revised Text: same as issue #56
Actions taken:
July 2, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 56: Communication failure issue (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: If the ORB suffered a communication failure while LockSet::lock() is being called, how does the client know if the lock was granted or not?
Resolution:
Revised Text: same as issue #47
Actions taken:
July 23, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 57: Getting the thread ID in a non-transactional lock request (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: In a non-transactional lock request, the lock identity is supposedly based on thread ID. How can the server code get the client thread ID when they may be on different machines?
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 58: Freeing of locks at the end of a transaction (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: It is not clear whether CosTransactions::Coordinator is responsible for freeing locks at the end of a transaction.
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 59: Coordinator remembering LockCoordinator (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: CosTransactions Coordinator does not have any IDL method to remember LockCoordinator. How does it know what Lock Coordinators should be informed to drop locks?
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 60: Input values for "which" arg of non-trans. LockCoordinator (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: For a non-transactional client who wants to get a LockCoordinator, what input values should one use for the "which argument?
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 61: Using local thread identification for concurrency (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: It seemed more useful for the concurrency service to be non-IDL, and just based on local thread identification.
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 1996: Received issue
Discussion:
Issue 576: Purpose of related LockSet (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: In the specification, "Related lock sets" appears only in "create_related()" and create_transaction_related()" Where do I use these methods
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 20, 1997: received issue
Discussion:
Issue 577: Which model should ConcurrencyControl support? (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: There is inconsistency regarding which model ConcurrencyControl needs to support
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 20, 1997: received issue
Discussion:
Issue 578: Who is responsible for releasing locks in transaction? (concurrency)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Summary: In lock duration of Section 7.1 there are two descriptions. The role of the clients is vague to me
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 20, 1997: received issue
Discussion: