OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers



Would you please point out where the spec does allow two conflicting
interpretations?

The intend of the spec was to allow the same <OnMessage> receiving multiple
messages concurrently, in parallel (as soon as the associated scope has
been entered.  Please see the corresponding quotes from the spec:

"The event handlers associated with a scope are enabled when the associated
scope starts . "

"A message event occurs when the appropriate message is received on the
specified partner link using the specified port type and operation.  When
such an event occurs, the corresponding activity is carried out.  However,
the event remains enabled, even for concurrent use.  Thus a particular
message event can occur multiple times while the corresponding scope is
active."

"All event handlers associated with a scope are disabled when the normal
processing of the scope is complete.  The already dispatched event handlers
are allowed to complete.  The completion of the scope as a whole is delayed
until all active event handlers have completed."

Regards,
Frank

-------------------
Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann, Distinguished Engineer
IBM Software Group
Member, IBM Academy of Technology

Phone 1:  +49-7031-16 39 98
Phone 2:  +49-7056-96 50 67
Mobile:  +49-172-731 5858
-----------------





To:    <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers


Chunbo, Edwin

According to a messge from Satish,
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200305/msg00131.html
Edwin's view seems to be closer to the original authors' intention.

The problem is that the specification itself allows at least two
interpretations. I raised this issue to clarify which is the right one.
After the discussion and the issue/requirementprocess mature,
I probably propose a motion to pick one iterpretation.

Yuzo


Chunbo> Hi Yuzo,
Chunbo>
Chunbo> I think the link status is maintained at process instance level,
not based
Chunbo> on the thread level.  So A and B will be synced as far as they
belong to the
Chunbo> same process instance.
Chunbo>
Chunbo> -Chunbo

Edwin> Yuzo,
Edwin> Thank you for the example. It seems that in that specific case, each
message
Edwin> would create a new flow activity. So if you have 4  messages, you
end up
Edwin> with 4 instances of the flow activity (all running concurrently).
Each flow
Edwin> activity instance will have its own AtoB link. No?
Edwin> Edwin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]