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 36 - Multiple instances of event handler


+1. adding messageType to onMessage would be enough. But there is a side
effect. We need to differentiate pick/onMessage and eventHandlers/onMessage.
Meaning we need a new name for eventHandlers/onMessage
Edwin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: edwink@collaxa.com
> Cc: 'Maciej Szefler'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 36 - Multiple instances of event handler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the intended semantics we want to attach to the 
> variable attribute in onMessage corresponds to that of an 
> argument in a funcion/method declaration. That is, the 
> variable is declared by its appearing in the onMessage 
> statement itself; we are only missing the "type"
> statement.
> 
> I guess this is also consistent with the catch model Edwin mentions.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> This is consistent with the
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                                     
>                       "Edwin                                  
>                                                                     
>                       Khodabakchian"           To:       
> "'Maciej Szefler'" <mbs@fivesight.com>, 
> <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>    
>                       <edwink@collaxa.c        cc:            
>                                                                     
>                       om>                      Subject:  RE: 
> [wsbpel] Issue 36 - Multiple instances of event handler              
>                                                               
>                                                                     
>                       09/19/2003 03:25                        
>                                                                     
>                       PM                                      
>                                                                     
>                       Please respond to                       
>                                                                     
>                       edwink                                  
>                                                                     
>                                                               
>                                                                     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reverse scope resolution seems a little bit black magic 
> to me. It we decide not to go down the path of serialization 
> because of sync performance issue, I think that we should 
> look at the syntax of catch. This will create the need to 
> have a separate syntax for onMessage in eventHandlers and 
> onMessage in pick. But it could be a good thing.
> Edwin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:24 AM
> > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 36 - Multiple instances of event handler
> >
> > Per the discussion at the face-to-face. My original though here was 
> > the the implicit scoping present in the BPEL syntax was responsible 
> > for this problem because it did not allow us to declare the message 
> > variable in the "most local" scope of the onMessage 
> handler. I won't 
> > go into too much detail because as Satish pointed it out 
> this premise 
> > is valid only if onMessage were an activity, and it is not.
> >
> > So, although I still think the syntax is still a bit 
> confusing as to 
> > scopes and activities (a <scope> is an activity without an implicit 
> > scope, and all other activity have an implicit scope, 
> except that in 
> > the implicit scope you cannot define variables, and 
> correlation sets, 
> > etc...), it is not responsible for this problem.
> >
> > Which brings me to the proposed solution; I still don't like it. 
> > Saying that a "copy" of the input variable in the onMessage 
> handler is 
> > made for each instance of the handler sounds like a hack, 
> and confuses 
> > the operational semantics. I think what we are trying to 
> say here is 
> > that the /name/ of the input message variable is /resolved/ 
> not in the 
> > scope that contains the event handler, but in the scope of the 
> > activity started by the onMessage event. For example:
> >
> > <scope name="S">
> >    <!-- no variables declared -->
> >    <eventHandler>
> >    <onMessage variable="foo">
> >       <scope name="SE">
> >          <variable name="foo" />
> >           ....
> >       </scope>
> >    </onMessage>
> >    </eventHandler>
> > </scope>
> >
> > In the above case because the name "foo" is evaluated in 
> the scope of 
> > the activity specified for the onMessage event, multiple 
> instances of 
> > the event will not use the same variable instance. In the following 
> > case:
> >
> > <scope name="S" >
> >    <variable name="foo" />
> >    <eventHandler>
> >      <onMessage variable="foo">
> >        <activityX>
> >      </onMessage>
> >    </eventHandler>
> > </scope>
> >
> > the variable "foo" will be shared by all instances of the onMessage 
> > event handler, as the implicit scope of "activityX"
> > does not define the "foo" variable and so we'll go to the 
> parent scope 
> > to resolve it, leading to resolution in scope "S" which is shared.
> >
> > I believe adopting the above language is cleaner in terms of 
> > operational semantics: fundamentally if the variable is used in the 
> > event handler it should not be declared in an enclosing scope, its 
> > like using a global variable to pass an argument to a function. the 
> > price is having to declare a scope as the activity for the 
> onMessage 
> > event (although if we could define a <variable> in the 
> implicit scope 
> > of an activity this would not be necessary).
> >
> > -maciej
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: jevdemon@microsoft.com [mailto:jevdemon@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [wsbpel] Groups - f2f-notes-9-18.doc uploaded
> > >
> > >
> > > The document f2f-notes-9-18.doc has been submitted by John Evdemon
> > > (jevdemon@microsoft.com) to the OASIS Web Services 
> Business Process 
> > > Execution Language TC document repository.
> > >
> > > Document Description:
> > > Sid's notes from yesterday morning.  Consider these to be "draft"
> > > minutes...
> > >
> > > Download Document:
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/download.p
> > hp/3565/f2f-notes-9-18.doc
> > >
> > > View Document Details:
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/document.p
> > > hp?document_id=3565
> > >
> > >
> > > PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email 
> > > application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You
> > may be able
> > > to copy and paste the entire link address into the 
> address field of 
> > > your web browser.
> > >
> > > -OASIS Open Administration
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster
> > > of the OASIS TC), go to
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
> > ave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster 
> > of the OASIS TC), go to 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
> > ave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 



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