Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issues 26 and 49

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

reading from the issues list is a bit confusing.  assaf has relevant
questions in issue 26 as you noted below.  issue 49 can be closed as
irrelevant.

danny

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>
To: "Danny van der Rijn" <dannyv@tibco.com>
Cc: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issues 26 and 49


> Danny van der Rijn wrote:
>
> >ok, i guess i must have missed that.   sounds like my issue is irrelevant
> >then.
> >
> >danny
> >
> >
> mm1: Danny, in the two comments that are extracted from Assaf below,
> don't we still have two items to clarify either by improvement in
> specification wording or more definition clarity. Assaf states the two
> cases with different conditions:
>
>     * Where you have the same partnerLink and portType but a different
>       correlation set.  How to match the <reply> to the <receive>.
>     * Where you have a pick and an event handler, the portType,
>       operation, partnerLink but the process can't deterministically
>       decide which of the activities to send the message.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >
> >>Arkin:.................This is the most precise the spec is on this
particular point. The
> >>features change section (page 13) actually clarifies the intent, but not
> >>in a normative way:
> >>
> >>"Correlation sets have now been added to the uniqueness requirement so
> >>that it is not
> >>legal to have two web service interactions outstanding if they have the
> >>same partner,
> >>port type, operation and correlation set(s)."
> >>..................
> >>
> >>So my understanding is that a synchronous operation starts with the
> >><receive> and ends with the <reply>, unless a reply has been sent, the
> >>operation is still outstanding, and so no other <receive> is allowed at
> >>that point in time. So the following sequence:
> >>
> >>sequence
> >>  receive X
> >>  receive Y
> >>  reply X
> >>  reply Y
> >>
> >>is illegal if X and Y are the same partner/operation/correlation.
> >>However, if X and Y are the same partner/operation but different
> >>correlations, then the sequence is legal, but only if one could figure
> >>out how to match the reply to the receive. Which in my opinion should be
> >>spelled out more clearly.
> >>
> >>........continued...............
> >>
> >>scope
> >>  . . .
> >>  pick
> >>    onMessage X
> >>   . . ..
> >>  eventHandler
> >>    onMessage Y
> >>
> >>where X and Y are the same partner/operation/correlation. In this case
> >>once the <pick> activity is performed, it competes with the enabled
> >>event handler for the same message. The process cannot decide which of
> >>these activities to forward the message to, and so this definition is
> >>undeterministic.
> >>
> >>arkin
> >>
> >>
>
>
> 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/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>