Israel Z Ben-Shaul and George T Heineman 1996 Distrib. Syst. Engng. 3 239 doi:10.1088/0967-1846/3/4/004
Israel Z Ben-Shaul
and George T Heineman![]()
A workflow management system (WFMS) employs a workflow manager (WM) to execute and automate the various activities within a workflow. To protect the consistency of data, the WM encapsulates each activity with a transaction; a transaction manager (TM) then guarantees the atomicity of activities. Since workflows often group several activities together, the TM is responsible for guaranteeing the atomicity of these units. There are scalability issues, however, with centralized WFMSs. Decentralized WFMSs provide an architecture for multiple autonomous WFMSs to interoperate, thus accommodating multiple workflows and geographically-dispersed teams. When atomic units are composed of activities spread across multiple WFMSs, however, there is a conflict between global atomicity and local autonomy of each WFMS. This paper describes a decentralized atomicity model that enables workflow administrators to specify the scope of multi-site atomicity based upon the desired semantics of multi-site tasks in the decentralized WFMS. We describe an architecture that realizes our model and execution paradigm.
07.05.Bx Computer systems: hardware, operating systems, computer languages, and utilities
07.05.Kf Data analysis: algorithms and implementation; data management
89.65.Gh Economics; econophysics, financial markets, business and management
Issue 4 (December 1996)
Israel Z Ben-Shaul and George T Heineman 1996 Distrib. Syst. Engng. 3 239
P Hartmann et al 2000 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 9 183
G L Kane and S F King 2001 New J. Phys. 3 21
Nathan Berkovits JHEP02(2005)060
S. Mathur et al. 2009 The Astronomical Journal 138 1655
L Xu and N Zhang 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 96 012209
Gabriela Barenboim and Joseph D. Lykken JHEP10(2007)032
Moping Li et al 2004 ApJ 613 L145
H Jänchen et al 1996 Pure Appl. Opt. 5 405
S Tamate et al 2009 New J. Phys. 11 093025