Issue 3984: Allowed InvocationPolicy and OTSPolicy interactions (ots-rtf) Source: Hewlett-Packard (Dr. Peter Furniss, peter(at)arjuna.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This is a possible issue arising from 3425 - I don't think the current text says what we meant. On looking through the current OTS text (00-09-04) I found the interaction table deems ADAPTS/UNSHARED and ADAPTS/EITHER are invalid. This would seem to seriously modify messaging capabilities, since it would mean that only REQUIRE objects can be invoked via routing from within a transaction (this is assuming that InvocationPolicy is irrelevant and unchecked when there is no active transaction). There is no mapping for what used to be ALLOWS_UNSHARED and ALLOWS_EITHER. Given that many objects will have ADAPTS, and EITHER is the default InvocationPolicy, this will severely restrict the use of routed invocations. Surely this is not what was intended. Checking the earlier drafts, it was a side-effect of removing ALLOWS to be (mostly) replaced by ADAPTS. ADAPTS had always had invalid with unshared or either, but allows was valid. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 23, 2000: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: "Peter Furniss" To: "Ots rtf" Cc: "issues" Subject: Allowed InvocationPolicy and OTSPolicy interactions 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: (g$e9f=?e9o3f!!+'+!! This is a possible issue arising from 3425 - I don't think the current text says what we meant. On looking through the current OTS text (00-09-04) I found the interaction table deems ADAPTS/UNSHARED and ADAPTS/EITHER are invalid. This would seem to seriously modify messaging capabilities, since it would mean that only REQUIRE objects can be invoked via routing from within a transaction (this is assuming that InvocationPolicy is irrelevant and unchecked when there is no active transaction). There is no mapping for what used to be ALLOWS_UNSHARED and ALLOWS_EITHER. Given that many objects will have ADAPTS, and EITHER is the default InvocationPolicy, this will severely restrict the use of routed invocations. Surely this is not what was intended. Checking the earlier drafts, it was a side-effect of removing ALLOWS to be (mostly) replaced by ADAPTS. ADAPTS had always had invalid with unshared or either, but allows was valid. Peter Furniss Bluestone Arjuna Lab peter.furniss@arjuna.com +44 20 7670 1963