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 - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType


Hello,
 
what about the reply activity?
 
Currently it requires the designer to fill in the right partner/porttype/operation
 
Another idea I had (with a somewhat different semantic) is to link the reply to the associated receive on desing time, by use of elemnt IDs.
 
<receive id="1" ... />
....
<reply href="1" />
 
I am not sure, if it is intentional to have multiple receives with the same port, and reply will answer to the one which was used, or is it more intentional, to specifically reply to a given receive, and make sure the control flow handles this.
 
Anyway, if we touch the receive signature, we might want to modify reply accordingly.
 
Greetings
Bernd
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:44 AM
To: Marin, Mike; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

Thanks.  Unless someone has a good argument for retaining portType in invoke I would propose that we just remove it.

 


From: Marin, Mike [mailto:MMarin@filenet.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:23 PM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

 

Satish,

 

I do agree that it is unlikely that a process will call itself, but the specification do allow it, because you do specify the port type in the Invoke. So you could specify the one that refers to the process itself. In order to retain that functionality, I did proposed to optionally use the role instead. But, I will be happy to modify my proposal to just remove the port type form the Invoke.

 

--

Regards,

Mike Marin

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:01 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

 

I agree with the analysis and the proposal except that I don’t see the need for the optional role specification.  When would a process need to invoke itself?  And in the rare cases when it does, the binding of the portLinks to create the cycle could be done externally relative to the process definition, could it not?

 

Satish

 


From: ws-bpel issues list editor [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:41 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

 

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

Status: open
Date added: 5 Aug 2003
Submitter: Marin, Mike
Date submitted: 01 August 2003
Description: The Invoke activity requires a partnerLink and a portType. However the partnerLink refers to a partnerLinkType, which also includes the portType. Therefore the portType in the Invoke is redundant.

A partnerLinkType do refer to a maximum of two portTypes. Assuming that a process does not invokes itself, then the Invoke refers to the partnerRole, not myRole, so there is only one possible portType, for that Invoke. In the other hand, if we assume the process can invoke itself, then it will be better to specify the role in the Invoke activity instead of the portType, because role has process semantics instead of the portType.
Submitter's Proposal: I propose that portType on the Invoke activity be removed and instead an optional role be included instead. When the role is specified, it must correspond to one of the two roles defined in the partnerLink. If the role is not specified the partnerRole in the partnerLink should be assumed.
Changes: 5 Aug 2003 - new issue


To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 44 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]