[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Do we need the createInstance attribute?
Good point. We need clarity on whether all initial activities must (A) be receives or picks and assuming that (B) must have createInstance set to "yes". I expect there are various opinions on this .. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:54 AM To: ygoland@bea.com Cc: Satish Thatte; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)' Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Do we need the createInstance attribute? Yaron Goland wrote: >I think an editorial change that describes 'createInstance' as a marker of a >start activity, explains that it is redundant and then describes why it is >there anyway should do nicely. Can we add that to the list you are >maintaining of things for the editors to do? > Does this really answer the original question you posed? Is the sample process fragment you supplied considered illegal? I can easily imagine someone trying to exploit such a "feature" if it was not explicitly banned. Borrowing from your example: <process> ... <flow> <receive partnerLink="A" createInstance="yes".../> <receive partnerLink="B" createInstance="no".../> </flow> </process> This could be used by partner B as a kind of polling mechanism to see if partner A has done his thing yet. Kind of an event handler for process instances that don't exist. Useful for non-deterministic (parallel) sections of a choreography. Do we wish to support this usage, or ban it? I think we need some explicit wording one way or the other. -Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]