W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Issue 1102 Proposal

From: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:41:53 +0000
Message-ID: <424020A1.9080801@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
CC: Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>, Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>

I am sorry I am catching up with this so late. Anyway
I have started perusing all mails and found this.

in conclusion I fully agree with Gary --- having activity
there instead of workunit looks the best and simplest
option: appropriate behaviours of finalizer, for which some
restricted form MAY be practically enough (and be needed
for verification) can come later: now let's set it to be
as general as possible.

I find introduction of finaliser, completion, isolation
and related mechanisms enriching CDL substantially. As far
as basic consistency is there, the generality should be
preferred rather than restriction.

kohei

Gary Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> Although I have asked Kohei for clarification on this, I actually think 
> the text in the issue is pretty clear: 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1102.
>  
> "Cannot see why finalizer blocks etc. should not combine in them 
> corresponding
> workunits --- the latter seem rather redundant in semantics (and examples).
> As far as I read, no repetition etc. seems possible in these blocks."
>  
> He is saying why is only a workunit permitted inside a finalizerBlock? I 
> can see no valid reason for this restriction, so I propose that we 
> change this to be an 'activity'.
>  
> The only changes I can see are in section 2.4.5:
>  
> 1) Syntax to change from
>  
> <finalizerBlock name="ncname" >
>     WorkUnit-Notation
> </finalizerBlock>
>  
> to
>  
> <finalizerBlock name="ncname" >
>       Activity-Notation
> </finalizerBlock>
>  
> 2) Last paragraph in that section - suggested change would be to remove 
> the sentence that talks about the workunit.
>  
> 3) Obviously the schema would need to be updated
>  
>  
> The examples in 2.4.10 could be updated, but they are still valid using 
> workunits.
>  
>  
> Regards
> Gary
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:07 UTC