From rinehuls@access.digex.net Thu Mar 13 19:02:42 1997 Received: from access4.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access4.digex.net [205.197.245.195]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA17321 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:02:40 +0100 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access4.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id NAA19812 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:02:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:02:28 -0500 (EST) From: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2438 - Disposition of Comments on PDAM1 to IS 13719-1 (PCTE) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ____________________beginning of title page _____________________________ ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2438 March 1997 TITLE: Disposition of Comments Report on Proposed Draft Amendment 1 (PDAM1): Fine-Grain Object Extensions to ISO/IEC 13719-1: Information Technology - Portable Common Tool Environment (PCTE), Part 1: Abstract Specification SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 WORK ITEM: JTC 1.22.47.3 STATUS: N/A CROSS REFERENCE: SC22 N2175, N2326 DOCUMENT TYPE: Disposition of Comments Report ACTION: To SC22 Member Bodies for information. Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Tel: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net _________________end of title page; beginning of text ____________________ Disposition of comments on PDAM1 to ISO/IEC 13719-1 PDAM ballot (SC22 N2175) One substantive comment was received, accompanying a positive vote from the UK: Clause F.4 (Concurrency and integrity control) does not make sufficiently clear the relation between locks on fine-grain objects and locks on their clusters. In particular: - Is the translation of a lock on a fine-grain object to one on the cluster transparent to the application? - presumably yes. - Is a lock on a cluster equivalent to locks on all the fine-grain objects in the cluster? - presumably yes. - Can LOCK_SET_OBJECT and LOCK_UNSET_OBJECT be used on fine-grain >objects? - presumably yes. - If 2 locks are acquired to different fine-grain objects in a cluster via LOCK_SET_OBJECT and the first is then released via LOCK_UNSET_OBJECT, does the second still hold or not? - presumably not. The response from WG22 is as follows. The translation of a lock on a fine-grain object to one on the cluster is not really transparent because no "locked_by" link is created between the locked fine-grain object and the enclosing activity. Such a link is created at the level of the cluster object when the first lock on any object of the cluster (including the cluster itself is requested by the activity. Note that this is a direct consequence of the definition of locks on fine-grain objects. Locking a cluster object is equivalent to locking any object of the cluster. The operations LOCK_SET_OBJECT and LOCK_UNSET_OBJECT can be used on fine-grain objects. Therefore, if LOCK_SET_OBJECT and LOCK_UNSET_OBJECT are applied successively to two different objects of a cluster, th whole cluster and all the objects of the cluster are successively locked and then unlocked. The following note will be added to the end of F.2.as a result of this comment: NOTE. LOCK_SET_OBJECT and LOCK_UNSET_OBJECT can be used on fine-grain objects, but their effects are to lock and unlock (respectively) the whole cluster and all its fine-grain objects. __________________-end of document SC22 N2438 ____________________