Issue 2618: OTS register_resource clarification (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: I think it might be useful to add some clarification text to register_resource in the OTS specification. If the invoked Coordinator represents a subtransaction, and the resource is not a SubtransactionAwareResource, then the resource is registered as a participant with the current transaction, but will only receive commit/rollback requests when the top-level ancestor terminates. The implication is that if the subtransaction rolls back it has no effect on resources registered in this way, i..e, they remain registered with the top-level transaction. Resolution: See Proposed Resolution Revised Text: Actions taken: April 21, 1999: received issue May 13, 2002: closed issue Discussion: Resolution: modify the paragraph "if the resource is a subtransaction aware resource" paragraph in the 2.6.11 register_resource description to be: "If the resource is a subtransaction aware resource (it supports the SubtransactionAwareResource interface) and the transaction associated with the target object is a subtransaction, then this operation registers the specified resource with the subtransaction and indirectly with the top-level transaction when the subtransaction's ancestors have completed. If the resource is not a subtransaction aware resource and the transaction associated with the target object is a subtransaction, then the resource is registered as a participant of this subtransaction. It is registered with the parent of this subtransaction only if and when this subtransaction is committed.. Otherwise (the transaction is a top-level transaction), the resource is registered as a participant in this transaction. End of Annotations:===== Sender: nmcl@ncl.ac.uk Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:44:10 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University X-Accept-Language: en To: issues@omg.org Subject: OTS register_resource clarification I think it might be useful to add some clarification text to register_resource in the OTS specification. If the invoked Coordinator represents a subtransaction, and the resource is not a SubtransactionAwareResource, then the resource is registered as a participant with the current transaction, but will only receive commit/rollback requests when the top-level ancestor terminates. The implication is that if the subtransaction rolls back it has no effect on resources registered in this way, i..e, they remain registered with the top-level transaction. So, I read this as essentially providing a short-cut for registering a resource with the top-level transaction. However, the implied behaviour seems to go against conventional subtransaction propagation rules, which would normally not propagate registered entities if the subtransaction rolls back, i.e., the resource would only be registered with the top-level transaction if the subtransaction (and presumably all of its ancestors) commit. Implementing this model would require the subtransaction (or some coordinator) to invoke rollback on the resource, since it would then have to know that the transaction it was initially registered as a participant within has rolled back. I think this can be fixed with some clarification text, rather than any changes to functionality if necessary. Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk 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 Subject: RE: Let's solve some OTS issues! Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:00:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Let's solve some OTS issues! Thread-Index: AcGfLz7wZr3nD7O8Q26ExIt6D5S1sgCvXXfQ From: "Normier, Bernard" To: "Mark Little" , "OTS RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id g0KJqOC02873 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: /2Pd96! To: "Bernard Normier" , "OTS RTF" References: <001a01c19f81$25ebea20$4985413f@boston.amer.iona.com> Subject: Issue 2618 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:55:11 -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: P5:e9Y;b!!HJb!!f'He9 Bernard, I think the change to the text you made for 2618 is good, but I'd like to change "completed" to "committed". Otherwise the implication is that propagation can occur if a containing transaction rolls back. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250 Subject: RE: Issue 2618 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:28:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 2618 Thread-Index: AcGjKvWCX4gqgaX+RsGBVygWx79sAwALfuKg From: "Normier, Bernard" To: "Mark Little" , "OTS RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id g0MFLJC08145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 0c6e92`Ee9`_\!!Ri_d9 Hi Mark, I agree. "completed" is actually part of the original sentence that I did not modify. "committed" would be certainly clearer. Unless there is any objection, the Proposed Resolution for issue #2618 is now to modify the paragraph "if the resource is a subtransaction aware resource" in the 2.6.11 register_resource description to be: "If the resource is a subtransaction aware resource (it supports the SubtransactionAwareResource interface) and the transaction associated with the target object is a subtransaction, then this operation registers the specified resource with the subtransaction and indirectly with the top-level transaction when the subtransaction's ancestors have *committed*. If the resource is not a subtransaction aware resource and the transaction associated with the target object is a subtransaction, then the resource is registered as a participant of this subtransaction. It is registered with the parent of this subtransaction only if and when this subtransaction is committed. Otherwise (the transaction is a top-level transaction), the resource is registered as a participant in this transaction." Thanks, Bernard -----Original Message----- From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:55 AM To: Normier, Bernard; OTS RTF Subject: Issue 2618 Bernard, I think the change to the text you made for 2618 is good, but I'd like to change "completed" to "committed". Otherwise the implication is that propagation can occur if a containing transaction rolls back. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250