Issue 3983: InvocationPolicy - transactions only ? (ots-rtf) Source: Hewlett-Packard (Dr. Peter Furniss, peter(at)arjuna.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The current text isn't very clear that InvocationPolicy applies to invocations from clients in transactions. c.f. the following from Bill Binko (21 Sept, in a message correcting me) "However, with that clarification, I would also like it made clear that this has no effect when used in a non-transactional invocation. This could be done with a better name or clarification in the text (I don't care), but it should be made very clear that non-transactional servers cannot attempt to dictate whether or not routers can be used." However the text in 10.3.11 on InvocationPolicy doesn't mention that - but just says "The InvocationPolicy specifies which form of invocation is supported by the target object.", with no mention of applying only if there is an active transaction. It does have the paragraph "The InvocationPolicy component is significant only when transactions are used with CORBA messaging.", but that doesn't capture the restriction on two grounds: a) CORBA messaging isn't involved if it's a direct invocation from an active transaction, but InvocationPolicy certainly is important then (the tests against UNSHARED + REQUIRES for example); b) transactions are always used with routed invocations (TII), but InvocationPolicy won't be involved if there is no (user) transaction. In the text on what happens in detail (10.5.2), the section is titled "Client behavior when making transactional invocations", but the text doesn't make clear that the first table is (I believe) skipped completely if there is no current transaction. (Given what the messaging spec says about how the context and the old policy values interact, I'm not sure 10.5.2 corresponds, but I'll make that a separate issue. This one is just about InvocationPolicy and non-transactional invocations). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 23, 2000: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: "Peter Furniss" To: "Ots rtf" Cc: "issues" Subject: InvocationPolicy - transactions only ? Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:15:44 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: fdJe9XA_d9~i)!!6Xh!! The current text isn't very clear that InvocationPolicy applies to invocations from clients in transactions. c.f. the following from Bill Binko (21 Sept, in a message correcting me) "However, with that clarification, I would also like it made clear that this has no effect when used in a non-transactional invocation. This could be done with a better name or clarification in the text (I don't care), but it should be made very clear that non-transactional servers cannot attempt to dictate whether or not routers can be used." However the text in 10.3.11 on InvocationPolicy doesn't mention that - but just says "The InvocationPolicy specifies which form of invocation is supported by the target object.", with no mention of applying only if there is an active transaction. It does have the paragraph "The InvocationPolicy component is significant only when transactions are used with CORBA messaging.", but that doesn't capture the restriction on two grounds: a) CORBA messaging isn't involved if it's a direct invocation from an active transaction, but InvocationPolicy certainly is important then (the tests against UNSHARED + REQUIRES for example); b) transactions are always used with routed invocations (TII), but InvocationPolicy won't be involved if there is no (user) transaction. In the text on what happens in detail (10.5.2), the section is titled "Client behavior when making transactional invocations", but the text doesn't make clear that the first table is (I believe) skipped completely if there is no current transaction. (Given what the messaging spec says about how the context and the old policy values interact, I'm not sure 10.5.2 corresponds, but I'll make that a separate issue. This one is just about InvocationPolicy and non-transactional invocations). Peter Furniss Bluestone Arjuna Lab peter.furniss@arjuna.com +44 20 7670 1963 From: Bill Binko To: "'Peter Furniss'" , Ots rtf Cc: issues Subject: RE: InvocationPolicy - transactions only ? Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:55:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: Y%hd9[_De9LV7e9IOk!! Peter, I would also like stronger language. However, with 3425 finally going away, I wasn't about to ask for it at the time :) The sentence: "TheInvocationPolicy component is significant only when transactions are used with CORBA messaging." was close enough to let it pass for the moment. TRC would certainly support additional clarification on this subject. Binko >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@arjuna.com] >Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 12:16 PM >To: Ots rtf >Cc: issues >Subject: InvocationPolicy - transactions only ? > > >The current text isn't very clear that InvocationPolicy applies to >invocations from clients in transactions. c.f. the following from Bill >Binko (21 Sept, in a message correcting me) > >"However, with that clarification, I would also like it made >clear that this >has no effect when used in a non-transactional invocation. >This could be >done with a better name or clarification in the text (I don't >care), but it >should be made very clear that non-transactional servers >cannot attempt to >dictate whether or not routers can be used." > >However the text in 10.3.11 on InvocationPolicy doesn't >mention that - but >just says "The InvocationPolicy specifies which form of invocation >is supported by the target object.", with no mention of >applying only if >there is an active transaction. It does have the paragraph "The >InvocationPolicy component is significant only when >transactions are used >with CORBA messaging.", but that doesn't capture the restriction on two >grounds: > >a) CORBA messaging isn't involved if it's a direct invocation >from an active >transaction, but InvocationPolicy certainly is important then >(the tests >against UNSHARED + REQUIRES for example); > >b) transactions are always used with routed invocations (TII), but >InvocationPolicy won't be involved if there is no (user) transaction. > >In the text on what happens in detail (10.5.2), the section is titled >"Client behavior when making transactional invocations", but the text >doesn't make clear that the first table is (I believe) skipped >completely if >there is no current transaction. > >(Given what the messaging spec says about how the context and >the old policy >values interact, I'm not sure 10.5.2 corresponds, but I'll make that a >separate issue. This one is just about InvocationPolicy and >non-transactional invocations). > >Peter Furniss > >Bluestone Arjuna Lab >peter.furniss@arjuna.com >+44 20 7670 1963 > >