RE: [wsbpel] Issue # 62 Proposal to Vote

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Dieter,

I agree with the English version but I believe there is a typo in the
"mathematical" point 2 below.  In order to be equivalent to the English,
point 2 should read

   2. If scope S is marked with variableAccessSerializable="no" then
both S-S and S-E can be marked variableAccessSerializable="yes".

Satish

-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Roller [mailto:ROL@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:41 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue # 62 Proposal to Vote

I suggest to add the following wording that clarifies the usage of
serializable scopes in the presence  of event handlers:

If a serializable scope has an event handler associated with it, no
enclosed scope nor a scope in the body of the event handler can be
serializable. If a non-serializable scope has an event handler
associated
with it, an enclosed scope as well as a scope in the body of the event
handler can be serializable.

I hope that's the English equivalent of the following:

Let's assume a scope S, an event handler E associated with S, a scope
S-S
that is part of S, and a scope S-E that is part of E. Then the following
rules apply
   1. If S is marked variableAccessSerializable="yes", then neither
scope
      S-S nor scope S-E can be marked with variableAccessSerializable
      ="yes".
   2. If scope S-S is marked variableAccessSerializable="yes", scope S-E
      can also be marked variableAccessSerializable="yes"



   Cheers,

   dieter




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_workgr
oup.php.