Re: Atomic Scopes

2008-09-30 Thread Assaf Arkin
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Karthick Sankarachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > d) Is there a reason why we can't propagate the transaction context in >> >> > one-way invokes? >> >> >> >> Because we're treating two-way as synchronous and one-way as >> >> asynchronous (different from r

Re: Atomic Scopes

2008-09-30 Thread Karthick Sankarachary
> > >> > d) Is there a reason why we can't propagate the transaction context in > >> > one-way invokes? > >> > >> Because we're treating two-way as synchronous and one-way as > >> asynchronous (different from request with empty response). Applying > >> these constraints makes it easier to reason

Re: Atomic Scopes

2008-09-29 Thread Assaf Arkin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Karthick Sankarachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > b) The spec doesn't say how atomic scopes should be retried in the case >> of >> > faults. >> >> By repeating the activity. > > > Does that mean that we have to redefine the and > options for the atomic scop

Re: Atomic Scopes

2008-09-29 Thread Karthick Sankarachary
> > > b) The spec doesn't say how atomic scopes should be retried in the case > of > > faults. > > By repeating the activity. Does that mean that we have to redefine the and options for the atomic scope activity? > > Due to their semantics, activity failure & recovery and atomic scope > are mu

Re: Atomic Scopes

2008-09-29 Thread Assaf Arkin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Karthick Sankarachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a few quick observations on the atomic > scopes > spec: > > a) The state of a scope consists of not just its variables but also its > correlation s