Issue 5326: context propagation (ots-structs-ftf) Source: University of Newcastle upon Tyne (Dr. Mark Little, m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The current specification implicitly assumes that, as with the OTS, contexts do not get propagated on system messages such as processSignal. However, this needs to be explicitly stated. Resolution: close no change Revised Text: Actions taken: May 24, 2002: received issue March 10, 2004: closed issue Discussion: Close this issue as it is addressed by Section 2.3.1 in the specification End of Annotations:===== From: "Mark Little" To: "XOTS FTF" Cc: Subject: context propagation Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:52:54 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 The current specification implicitly assumes that, as with the OTS, contexts do not get propagated on system messages such as processSignal. However, this needs to be explicitly stated. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: context propagation To: "Mark Little" Cc: ots-structs-ftf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 From: "Ian Robinson" Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:45:40 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d06ml007/06/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 24/05/2002 11:52:01 The right way to state this is with an explicit declaration of which ActivityPolicy should be associated with the Action, ActivityCoordinator etc objects. Ian Robinson, WebSphere Transactions Architecture IBM Hursley Lab Tel (Ext) +44-1962-818626 (Int) 7-248626 Fax +44-1962-818626 ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com "Mark Little" on 24/05/2002 09:52:54 Please respond to "Mark Little" To: "XOTS FTF" cc: Subject: context propagation The current specification implicitly assumes that, as with the OTS, contexts do not get propagated on system messages such as processSignal. However, this needs to be explicitly stated. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2606216 Fax : +44 191 2606250 From: "Mark Little" To: "Ian Robinson" Cc: Subject: Re: context propagation Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:53:52 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 That's one way of specifying it in terms of implementation detail. However, the text on contexts still needs updating because it occurs before the CORBA-specific sections and is more a model/architecture statement. How we do it is a different level of discussion from why we do it. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Robinson" To: "Mark Little" Cc: Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: context propagation > The right way to state this is with an explicit declaration of which > ActivityPolicy should be associated with > the Action, ActivityCoordinator etc objects. > > Ian Robinson, > WebSphere Transactions Architecture > IBM Hursley Lab > Tel (Ext) +44-1962-818626 (Int) 7-248626 > Fax +44-1962-818626 > ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com > > > "Mark Little" on 24/05/2002 09:52:54 > > Please respond to "Mark Little" > > To: "XOTS FTF" > cc: > Subject: context propagation > > > > The current specification implicitly assumes that, as with the OTS, > contexts > do not get propagated on system messages such as > processSignal. However, > this needs to be explicitly stated. > > Mark. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer, > Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs > Email: mark_little@hp.com > Phone: +44 191 2606216 > Fax : +44 191 2606250 > From: "Mark Little" To: Subject: Proposed issue 5326 text Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:21:10 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Newcastle-MailScanner: Found to be clean Here's what I propose for issue 5326: At the end of section 2.1.3.4 (ActivityIdentity and ActivityContext) add the following: "Note, unless explicitly stated otherwise, ActivityContext information does not flow implicitly across operation signatures of any of the interfaces defined in this specification." Mark. Subject: Re: Proposed issue 5326 text To: "Mark Little" Cc: ots-structs-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 From: "Ian Robinson" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 20:58:33 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d06ml007/06/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 05/04/2003 21:45:19 Section 2.3.1 of the specifcation already states: "If apv is INTERNAL, then a method request must be sent without an Activity context regardless of whether it is made within the scope of an Activity or not. Activity service implementation objects use this policy." The text proposed for this issue is consistent with 2.3.1 but is perhaps unnecessary given 2.3.1. Ian Ian Robinson, Senior Technical Staff Member, WebSphere Transactions Architecture & Development, IBM Hursley Lab, UK Tel +44-(0)1962-818626 Tie: 724-8626 ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com |---------+----------------------------> | | "Mark Little" | | | | | | | | | 04/04/2003 11:21 | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: Proposed issue 5326 text | | | | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Here's what I propose for issue 5326: At the end of section 2.1.3.4 (ActivityIdentity and ActivityContext) add the following: "Note, unless explicitly stated otherwise, ActivityContext information does not flow implicitly across operation signatures of any of the interfaces defined in this specification." Mark. From: "Mark Little" To: "Ian Robinson" Cc: Subject: Re: Proposed issue 5326 text Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:40:50 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Newcastle-MailScanner: Found to be clean I'm happy with that. So the revised proposal is to close the issue but reference the specification as it stands. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Robinson" To: "Mark Little" Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Proposed issue 5326 text > Section 2.3.1 of the specifcation already states: > "If apv is INTERNAL, then a method request must be sent without an Activity > context regardless of whether it is made within the scope of an Activity or > not. > Activity service implementation objects use this policy." > > The text proposed for this issue is consistent with 2.3.1 but is perhaps > unnecessary given 2.3.1. > > Ian > > Ian Robinson, > Senior Technical Staff Member, > WebSphere Transactions Architecture & Development, > IBM Hursley Lab, UK > Tel +44-(0)1962-818626 Tie: 724-8626 > ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com > > > > |---------+----------------------------> > | | "Mark Little" | > | | | | c.uk> | > | | | > | | 04/04/2003 11:21 | > | | | > |---------+----------------------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------| > | | > | To: | > | cc: | > | Subject: Proposed issue 5326 text | > | | > | | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------| > > > > Here's what I propose for issue 5326: > > At the end of section 2.1.3.4 (ActivityIdentity and ActivityContext) add > the > following: > > "Note, unless explicitly stated otherwise, ActivityContext information does > not flow implicitly across operation signatures of any of the interfaces > defined in this specification." > > Mark. > > > > > > > Issue 5326 (Mark Little) Close this issue as it is addressed by Section 2.3.1 in the specification. Issue 5431 (Mark Little) Leave this issue open. Issue 5451 (Mark Little) Close this issue as it is addressed by the solution to issue 4252.