Issue 1848: register_synchronization (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: if register_synchronization is called on a subtransaction should we throw SynchronizationUnavailable? Resolution: see below Revised Text: add the following paragraph to 2.6.12) register_synchronization: A synchronization cannot be registered with a subtransaction. A call to register_synchronization on a subtransaction always raises SynchronizationUnavailable. Actions taken: August 24, 1998: received issue May 13, 2002: closed issue Discussion: Resolution: update the description of register_synchronization to require SynchronizationUnavailable to be thrown if the current transaction is a subtransaction. End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:05:57 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University To: issues@omg.org, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: further issues for OTS RTF Here are some more issues which I've come across while implementing the OTS. In no particular order: (i) if register_synchronization is called on a subtransaction should we throw SynchronizationUnavailable? From: blakeb@gemstone.com (Blake Biesecker) Subject: Issue 1848 To: ots-rtf@omg.org Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:51:49 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: 3Y%e9A5&!!mMpd9;hZd9 Any opinions on this issue? Blake Issue 1848: register_synchronization (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: if register_synchronization is called on a subtransaction should we throw SynchronizationUnavailable? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 24, 1998: received issue Discussion: received issue End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:05:57 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University To: issues@omg.org, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: further issues for OTS RTF Here are some more issues which I've come across while implementing the OTS. In no particular order: (i) if register_synchronization is called on a subtransaction should we throw SynchronizationUnavailable? From: "Mark Little" To: "Bernard Normier" , "OTS RTF" References: <03d001c19d50$ae1faae0$4985413f@boston.amer.iona.com> Subject: Re: Let's solve some OTS issues! Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:51:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ee"e9GF#!!=*~e9<0)!! A few proposals to issues I've raised in the past then: Issue 1929: the timeout value sent in transaction contexts for top-level transactions is the time remaining (in seconds). Issue 1848: update the description of register_synchronization to require SynchronizationUnavailable to be thrown if the current transaction is a subtransaction. Issue 2618: modify the paragraph on register_resource to include: "If a the resource is a Resource and the current transaction is a subtransaction, then the Resource is registered as a participant in the current transaction and indirectly with the parent if the current transaction commits and all parents up to the root transaction also commit." Issue 4343: close this issue as it is mentioned in the section on subordinate coordinator on page 10-58. I'd like to address a couple of older issues (1998) about subtransactions but this will require a revisit about what we think subtransactions are! A little late for what could be a long discussion. BTW, have we removed anonymous types from the IDL as 3762 mentions? Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250