Re: [wsbpel] invoke/receive-callback race conditions, even in the1.1 sample (p.22)

["Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
>
>Bernd,
>
>The meaning of the example you mention is that messages will be sent and
>consumed in a particular order. I think it is clear that the specification
>must assume that "the runtime engine behaves correct in this situation"; I
>don't know what else could be assumed.
>  
>
mm1: As Bernd asked, and should be documented in an issue, is that all 
assumptions can not be implicit.  I would suggest this be raised as an 
issue for resolution, Bernd. With that issue, further discussion and 
decisions can be made about message ordering sequence and execution, and 
at what level the constraints are applied.

>The point you are making seems related to the set of assumptions we are
>(implicitly) making about the capabilities of the runtime environment in
>which BPEL-e will execute. Any language makes this kind of assumptions,
>more or less explicitly; languages become higher level (and more useful)
>often by pushing additional capabilities into the runtime. I think we have
>to assume that the runtime will be able to cope with things as simple as an
>invoke-receive sequence; otherwise we would make modeling the simplest
>message exchange protocol an exercise in concurrent programming - I don't
>think we want to go there, but that is just my humble opinion.
>
>Regards,
>
>Paco
>
>  
>