Legacy Issue Number: 3302
Source: BROKAT Informationssysteme ( Blake Biesecker)
In order to resolve the OTS RTF issue 1819, we need
to have clearer wording regarding what COMPLETED_NO.
Since we now have the POA, the following phrase from
section 3.17 is not clear enough:
COMPLETED_NO The object implementation was never initiated prior to the exception being raised
In order to get proper rollback logic for transactions
that get system exceptions and, I'd imagine, to get
proper fault tolerant behavior, it needs to be made
clear that COMPLETED_NO means that absolutely no execution
on the server took place prior to the exception being
raised. Without such a clarification, it is not possible
to guarantee data integrity for fault tolerance and it
forces the OTS to insist on a strict rollback policy when
a system exception is raised.
In particular, with the advent of the POA, "object implementation"
is not as clear as it once was. Does this include servant
locators, for example.
As a place to start, I'd like to suggest this instead:
COMPLETED_NO No execution was initiated in the server prior to the exception being raised
(The archive for issue 1819 contains a lot more
discussion on this topic as it relates to the
Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Tue, 8 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — CORBA 2.4
Close no change
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT