Issues for Transaction Working Group of the CORBAservices RTFmailing list

To comment on any of these issues, send email to [email protected]. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to [email protected].

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Jira Issues

Issue 45: HeuristicHazard exception on commit_one_phase Jira Issue TRANS14-11
Issue 46: Conflict on commit_one_phase exceptions Jira Issue TRANS14-12
Issue 48: OTS Interoperability problems Jira Issue TRANS14-13
Issue 50: Status enum clarification Jira Issue TRANS14-14
Issue 51: Object Caching Problem Jira Issue TRANS14-15
Issue 54: RecoveryCoordinator question Jira Issue TRANS14-16
Issue 65: Transaction status Jira Issue TRANS14-17
Issue 67: Two-way implicit propagation Jira Issue TRANS14-18
Issue 70: hash_transaction() Jira Issue TRANS14-19
Issue 71: OTID format Jira Issue TRANS14-20
Issue 72: hash_transaction() ranges Jira Issue TRANS14-21
Issue 99: Failure sending rollback() to resource Jira Issue TRANS14-22
Issue 102: Question on replay_completion Jira Issue TRANS14-23
Issue 103: Resource commit failure after votecommit Jira Issue TRANS14-24
Issue 118: commit_one_phase() danger Jira Issue TRANS14-25
Issue 119: Receiving commit() after voting VoteRollback Jira Issue TRANS14-26
Issue 120: Getting CORBA::TransactionsRolledBack when committing Jira Issue TRANS14-27
Issue 121: Getting CosTransactions::NotPrepared when committing Jira Issue TRANS14-28
Issue 122: repeated COMM_FAILURE Jira Issue TRANS14-29
Issue 124: Contention between the use of Current w/security Jira Issue TRANS14-30
Issue 135: prepare() signature changes Jira Issue TRANS14-31
Issue 136: Problems with get_status Jira Issue TRANS14-32
Issue 139: Transaction Context propagation Jira Issue TRANS14-33
Issue 182: INV_OBJREV and UNKNOWN Jira Issue TRANS14-34
Issue 183: is_equivalent Jira Issue TRANS14-35
Issue 285: Remove the CORBA standard exceptions Jira Issue TRANS14-36
Issue 286: Remove the ORB exceptions added by Transactions Service Jira Issue TRANS14-37
Issue 287: Provide an interface for interposition Jira Issue TRANS14-38
Issue 288: Importing a transaction Jira Issue TRANS14-39
Issue 289: Optimizing Registration between transaction service domains Jira Issue TRANS14-40
Issue 299: Object Identity and Transaction Service Jira Issue TRANS14-41
Issue 301: Accessing Transaction Service Jira Issue TRANS14-42
Issue 302: Propagation on terminator methods Jira Issue TRANS14-43
Issue 303: before_completion() Jira Issue TRANS13-51
Issue 304: OTS v2 Synchronization Jira Issue TRANS14-44
Issue 305: Coordinator::get_txcontext() Jira Issue TRANS14-45
Issue 461: IDL Circularities in Draft 3 OTS spec Jira Issue TRANS14-46
Issue 463: More IDL circularities Jira Issue TRANS14-47
Issue 474: Question on TransactionFactory::recreate operation Jira Issue TRANS14-48
Issue 483: implicit propagation of context vs. CORBA v2 IIOP header Jira Issue TRANS14-49
Issue 500: Rollback and heuristics (problem in final draft 4) Jira Issue TRANS14-50
Issue 582: Possible namespace collision in OTS idl Jira Issue TRANS14-51
Issue 625: namespace collision? Jira Issue TRANS14-52
Issue 631: Possible problem with attributes Jira Issue TRANS14-53
Issue 652: Synchronizations in nested transactions Jira Issue TRANS14-54
Issue 771: Question about CosTransactions behaviour Jira Issue TRANS14-55
Issue 772: Subtransactions question Jira Issue TRANS14-56
Issue 773: Current.timeout part of service context? Jira Issue TRANS14-57
Issue 775: checked/unchecked transaction behaviour Jira Issue TRANS14-58
Issue 816: Current set_timeout clarification Jira Issue TRANS14-59
Issue 1300: Transactions and oneway Jira Issue TRANS14-60
Issue 1301: Transaction propagation and interceptors Jira Issue TRANS14-61
Issue 1317: Name clashes with current in PropagationContext (01) Jira Issue TRANS14-62
Issue 1318: Name clashes with current in PropagationContext (02) Jira Issue TRANS14-63
Issue 1762: The CosTransactions module on pp 10-69 to 10-72 needs small fixes Jira Issue TRANS14-64

Issue 45: HeuristicHazard exception on commit_one_phase (transactions)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: If this operation raises a HeuristicHazard exception, should the coordinator object send a forget() to the resource object doing the operation? 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 2, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: Nature changed to clarification
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:
 closed issue


Issue 46: Conflict on commit_one_phase exceptions (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: There is a conflict as to what exceptions commit_one_phase() can raise (p. 10-28 and p. 10-29). 

Resolution:
Revised Text: no change
Actions taken:
July 2, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 48: OTS Interoperability problems (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: The OTS specification has interoperability problems: for example, co-ordinators from different implementations trying to communicate, registration of new subordinates. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: updated by adding get_txcontext to the Coordinator interface.
Actions taken:
July 3, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 50: Status enum clarification (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: A detailed explanation of the possible results for get_status on the coordinator object would be helpful. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: updated by adding 3 new status codes and clarifying definitions
Actions taken:
July 10, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 51: Object Caching Problem (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: When a single transaction includes both recoverable objects and procedural database systems, a caching problem between private and system copies of the data can arise. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Updated by adding the Synchronization interface and its 2 operations
Actions taken:
July 10, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 54: RecoveryCoordinator question (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What is the RecoveryCoordinator for? Can"t a resource just send a get_status()? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
July 12, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 65: Transaction status (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: The meaning of the transaction status is not clear. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Duplicate of issue # 50
Actions taken:
August 5, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 67: Two-way implicit propagation (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: It is not clear if the implicit propagation works in the reply direction as well as the sending direction. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 5, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 70: hash_transaction() (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Since hash_transaction() returns a single hash code for a transaction, all vendors should ideally use the same algorithm for OTID hashing. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 13, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 71: OTID format (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: How does the bequal_length in the otid_id differ from the bqual_length in the X/Open XID definition? Alsom why is gtrid dropped in the otid_id structure? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
August 13, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 72: hash_transaction() ranges (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: hash_transaction only allows a single range of hash values -- this range should be such that it can be customized. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 13, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 99: Failure sending rollback() to resource (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: If a client tells a terminator to rollback a transaction, and during rollback the coordinator it cannot contact a resource object, what should it do? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
September 6, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 102: Question on replay_completion (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Why is there no mention of the exception StExcep:OBJECT_NOT_EXIST, and why are INV_OBJREF and UNKNOWN used instead? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
September 6, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 103: Resource commit failure after votecommit (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What should a resource raise if it first voted votecommit, but later finds out it cannot commit in the commit() function. HeuristicRollback? Also, what if the commit fails partway? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
September 6, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 118: commit_one_phase() danger (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: If a top level commit sees there is only one resource it controls, and decides to use commit_one_phase() on it. If it returns COMM_FAILURE we don"t know if it committed or rolled back. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
September 23, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 119: Receiving commit() after voting VoteRollback (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What should an implementation do if a resource receives a commit() call after voting VoteRollback previously? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: No change
Actions taken:
September 23, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 120: Getting CORBA::TransactionsRolledBack when committing (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What should we do when we are committing a resource, and get CORBA::TransactionsRolledBack exception from it? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: no change
Actions taken:
September 23, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 121: Getting CosTransactions::NotPrepared when committing (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What should we do if we get a CosTransactions::NotPrepared exception back when committing a resource, when all resources were prepared before? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: no change
Actions taken:
September 26, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 122: repeated COMM_FAILURE (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What is to be done in cases involving previously votecommitted resources that have lost contact with the coordinator? 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 23, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: changed from Uncategorized to Clarification

Discussion:


Issue 124: Contention between the use of Current w/security (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: CORBAsecurity made it so that the Current pseudo object is obtains from ORB::get_current, while the C mapping allows in-line creation. Might transactions change to be like security? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Updated by incorporating changes made in Security spec
Actions taken:
September 23, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 135: prepare() signature changes (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature:
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: There is an IDL signature change in OTS 1.1: prepare() can raise HeuristicHazard and HeuristicMixed conditions. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Updated by adding exceptions to resource::Prepare
Actions taken:
September 26, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 136: Problems with get_status (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: There are several problems related to insisting that the "ed" ending means the completion of a transaction stage (preparED, committED, rollEDback). 

Resolution:
Revised Text: same as issue 50 and 65
Actions taken:
September 26, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 139: Transaction Context propagation (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: The OTS spec seems ambiguous as to what happens to the transaction context when a message is sent to a non-transactional object within a COS transaction. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 30, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 182: INV_OBJREV and UNKNOWN (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: C. Wood mentioned in OTS spec Sec 10.5.1 the wording about StExcep::INV_OBJREV and StEXcep::UNKNOWN is replaced by CORBA 2.0 spec"s CORBA::OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception->confirmation??? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Updated by replacing INV_OBJREV and UNKNOWN exceptions with OBJECT_NOT_EXIST exception added in CORBA 2.0
Actions taken:
October 7, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 183: is_equivalent (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: The CORBA object model asserts that an object may have more than one reference. Two object references whichdenote same CORBA object may not necessarily compare equal 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
October 10, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 285: Remove the CORBA standard exceptions (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Remove the CORBA standard exceptions added by the Transaction Service and add them to the CORBA specification 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Exceptions have been changed to conform to format in the CORBA book, viz. capital letters for names, separation of names by _, and the inorporation of the ex_body parameter, e.g. exception TransactionRequired {} became exception TRANSACTION_REQUIRED_ex_b
Actions taken:
October 21, 1996: received issue
December 12, 1996: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 286: Remove the ORB exceptions added by Transactions Service (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Remove the ORB exceptions added by the Transactions Service and add them to the CORBA specification 

Resolution:
Revised Text: same as issue 285. Additionally the ORB operation which is used to connect the Transaction Service to the ORB (pg 10-65) has been flagged as needing to be moved to the CORBA book as well
Actions taken:
October 21, 1996: received issue
December 12, 1996: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 287: Provide an interface for interposition (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary:  

Resolution:
Revised Text: Updated by adding TransactionFactory::recreate operation
Actions taken:
October 21, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 288: Importing a transaction (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Importing a transaction from the procedural domain into the CORBA Transaction service 

Resolution:
Revised Text: updated by adding TransactionFactory::recreate operation
Actions taken:
October 21, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 289: Optimizing Registration between transaction service domains (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary:  

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 21, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 299: Object Identity and Transaction Service (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Importance of the object identity issue 

Resolution:
Revised Text: no change, Transaction Service does not rely on object identity
Actions taken:
October 22, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 301: Accessing Transaction Service (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity: q302
Summary:
Summary: CORBA2.0 spec (sec. 7.6) refers to initial reference mechanism to get access to services and states the service will state whether it will respond to resolve_initial_references.-No statement 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Service does not respond to the resolve_initial_reference operation on ORB. TransactionFactory is located using the factoryFinder interfaceof life cycle service.Sentence to the description of Factory interface added.
Actions taken:
November 4, 1996: received issue
December 12, 1996: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 302: Propagation on terminator methods (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Coordinator, TransactionFactory, Terminator, Control are all in same boat. Terminator object not transactional since it doesn"t inherit from CosTransactions::TransactionalObject..True?? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: No change, inheritance not required
Actions taken:
November 4, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 303: before_completion() (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: before_completion() combined with X/Open TP manager is in control of transaction:By the time OTS gets control and calls before_completion()it"s too late to flush data toX/Open data sourc 

Resolution: close no change in 2.4
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 31, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:
 The semantics of #include is pretty clear. The fact that a different semantics often referred to as the "import semantics" would be very desirable is also  clear. It is not clear that an RTF can make those kinds of extensions to the IDL. It appears that the submitters to the Component RFP are proposing something along  those lines, so it is time to close this issue deferring to the efforts of the Component submitters.


Issue 304: OTS v2 Synchronization (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Discussion about synchronization interface, added in latest draft of OTS spec. Should the described set of problems be addressed in current level of the spec?(/archives/issues/issue304) 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 31, 1996: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 305: Coordinator::get_txcontext() (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Coordinator is created by the transaction factory"s create() method. Transaction factory isn"t declared to inherit from TransactionalObject.How does Coordinator::get_txcontext() work? 

Resolution:
Revised Text: no change, inheritance not required
Actions taken:
October 29, 1996: received issue
January 6, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 461: IDL Circularities in Draft 3 OTS spec (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: There is a circularity that exists between the Coordinator & PropagationContext interfaces. This cannot be resolved. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: This issue has been fixed as described in memo of 12/10/1996
Actions taken:
December 10, 1996: received issue
December 12, 1996: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 463: More IDL circularities (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Draft 3 spec has another circularity between CosTransactions & CosTSInterpretation.New "recreate" operation of CosTransactions::PropagationContext parameter is leading to it. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Issue has been fixed as described in memo of 12/10/1996
Actions taken:
November 12, 1996: received issue
December 12, 1996: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 474: Question on TransactionFactory::recreate operation (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Two statements in description of this operation under 10.3.2 are contradictory 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Clarification
Actions taken:
December 13, 1996: received issue
January 24, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 483: implicit propagation of context vs. CORBA v2 IIOP header (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: CORBA v2 spec appears to have added a slot in IIOP request header for sending transaction context. Which one should OTS spec reference? Do ORBs have to support both? 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 30, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 500: Rollback and heuristics (problem in final draft 4) (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Resource operation rollback can raise HeuristicCommit, HeuristicMixed, and HeuristicHazard. Rollback operation on Current and the terminator cannot raise heuristic exceptions at al 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 17, 1997: received issue
February 21, 1997: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 582: Possible namespace collision in OTS idl (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: This possible collision  occurs in the TransIdentity struct. The same problem occurs in the Synchronization interface. ORBs complain that status is redefined 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 9, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 625: namespace collision? (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: Complaiints about PropagationContext Structure in draft3/draft4 CosTransactions module. Error: case of current does not match Current 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 3, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 631: Possible problem with attributes (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: usinng explicit transaction propagation, the OTS spec says that programmer must modify signatures of interface mmethods to take transaction context as parameter. How does it work with attributes 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 21, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 652: Synchronizations in nested transactions (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: What should be done if a user calls register_synchronization on a nested action Coordinator. You could raise one of the standard exceptions but some explicit text would be useful 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 5, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 771: Question about CosTransactions behaviour (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: What exception should be raised if the following Java code is executed? <find example in corresponding archive file> Resume should not raise an exception when passed a (possibly) invalid control object. However, commit must fail. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 14, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 772: Subtransactions question (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: What happens if the transaction service does not support subtransactions and the following Java code is executed (find code in corresponding archive file)The create call in the TransactionFactory receives current (non-null) transaction in the service context. Should it ignore the current transaction and create another (flat) transaction? 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 14, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 773: Current.timeout part of service context? (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: Is the Current.timeout part of the service context? If not, how does one set the timeout on subtransactions? If so, how does the server retrieve this information (Current::get_timeout() doesn"t exist). 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 14, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 775: checked/unchecked transaction behaviour (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: Chapter 10.4.3 (page 10-32 explains the concept of checked transaction behaviour. The opposite concept, unchecked transaction behaviour does not make sense.. It may not ensure the ACID properties of a transaction. Please clarify 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 29, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 816: Current set_timeout clarification (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: There may be a requirement to clarify description of the set_timeout method of Current.The description in the spec. isn"t too clear on this and could be read as a "global" setting of tieouts 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 27, 1997: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 1300: Transactions and oneway (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature:
Severity:
Summary:
Summary:         The current version of the OTS spec seems to have lost the statement   that the oneway keyword in IDL is not supported if transactions are used.   Since this continues to be true, this should be reinserted by the next RTF.    

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 30, 1998: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 1301: Transaction propagation and interceptors (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Summary:         When the interop RTF (or some other OMG process) finishes the   definition of the interceptor architecture, the OTS specification needs to   be updated to embrace it. This issue is being logged as a placeholder so   some future OTS RTF can deal with it when it is appropriate to do something   with it.    

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 30, 1998: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 1317: Name clashes with current in PropagationContext (01) (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: I noticed that the latest draft of the OTS clears up the name clashes   with Coordinator and Terminator in TransIdentity, but hasn"t fixed the   clash with current in PropagationContext. At present I"m having to   rename this to currentTransaction, but this may not be "official".      There are a few other places in the current spec. which I think may need   slight modifications (assuming I haven"t missed the text that covers   them):      i) the description of Current doesn"t specify what default timeout value   will be given to begin if set_timeout has not been called prior to begin   for the particular client thread. This may be deliberate so as to allow   an implementation dependant choice, or it may simply be assumed to be   zero (no timeout). Either way, I think something should be mentioned in   the spec.    

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 12, 1998: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 1318: Name clashes with current in PropagationContext (02) (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
Summary: I noticed that the latest draft of the OTS clears up the name clashes   with Coordinator and Terminator in TransIdentity, but hasn"t fixed the   clash with current in PropagationContext. At present I"m having to   rename this to currentTransaction, but this may not be "official".   ii) I"ve been assuming that the resume operation on Current simply   "overwrites" the current transaction in favour of any that may be   running. So if the new transaction terminates, the client thread becomes   associated with the null context (assuming the transaction was not   nested.) However, it"s been pointed out to me that the spec. only says   the new transaction is used "in place of any previous transaction", and   that this could mean the old transaction is associated with the client   thread once the new transaction terminates. Whether or not this was   meant to be another implementation specific choice I think we need to   say something more in the description of resume.    

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 12, 1998: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 1762: The CosTransactions module on pp 10-69 to 10-72 needs small fixes (transactions)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Summary: The CosTransactions module on pp 10-69 to 10-72 needs small fixes   * struct TransIdentity use Coordinator and Terminator before the     forward declaration of Coordinator and Terminator.        Suggested resolution: move the 3 structs after the forward      declarations of CosTransactions interfaces.      * Synchronization::after_completion     "in Status status" is not valid IDL    

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 30, 1998: received issue

Discussion: