> Back to the high-water mark ... isn't it just the largest xmi id in the > serialized CAS? Its relationship to the CAS heap is a matter of > implementation but presumably we can have a design that says any new FSs > must be given an xmi id above the high-water mark when serialized back from > a service. We already have the requirement that ids must be preserved for > the merging of parallel replies. >
Yes - there are really two definitions of high-water mark floating around in this thread and it would be good to split them apart. (1) the largest xmi:id in the serialized CAS. This is a requirement that the service protocol places on the CAS serializer. This is what we already have for merging, and I don't think Thilo is objecting to this. (2) a dependency on the FS address being an indicator of which FS are newer than others (an FS with a larger address is newer). As I think about it now I am actually unclear on whether we are doing #2 right now at all. Bhavani said we were, but that's not how I recall that the serializer currently works. It keeps a table of all the incoming FS, which is necessary in order to have the xmi:ids going out be the same as the ones coming in. So I thought the serializer just used the fact that an FS was missing from this table to determine that it was new, and *not* a high water mark of the FS address. Bhavani, can you clarify? -Adam
