[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers
Frank, I am not sure whether I understand your question correctly. My point was that something is not clearly defined anywhere in the specification. So I couldn't point out where. I think there are two interpreations for the link semantics: A: link status is maintained per event handler thread. B: link status is maintained per process instance. Could you prove that only one of them is valid, based on the information contained in the specification? Yuzo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Leymann" <LEY1@de.ibm.com> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 1:01 AM 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 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]