At 06:13 PM 1/21/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>>I am ambivalent about having multiple operations in a transaction. The
>protocol we choose may or may not accommodate multiple operations. If
>we decide that multiple operations per transaction is good, we need to
>define what they mean. For example, do they imply some atomicity, or
>are they equivalent to the same operations in separate transactions in
>sequence?
>>
Please,
we are trying to keep things simpler than in DPA.
I strongly recommend that we keep things clean and easy, e.g. not
even consider having multiple operations in an operations, which is
complexity that we avoided in DPA.
We could still have things in the user scenarios that might look like
a single transaction to the user, but is broken down to several
independent operations in the protocol.
Carl-Uno