Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - New issueTriggering activities for abst ractprocesses

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

yes, that helps me a lot.  thanks.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com>
To: <dannyv@tibco.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:50 AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - New issueTriggering activities for abst
ract processes


Danny,

The idea is to allow any activity to be used at the beginning of a BPEL
abstract process. What does it mean "any activity"? Syntactically a bpel
process (either executable or abstract) includes exactly one activity; for a
complex control flow the <process> element must encompass a complex
activity, such as <sequence>, <flow>, etc. Therefore, "any activity" really
refers to "basic" activities (<empty>, <invoke>, <receive>, <reply>,
<assign>, <wait> and <terminate>). For abstract processes some of these
activities at the beginning of the process do not make sense. From my point
of view the following activities do not make sense: <empty>, <reply>,
<assign> and <wait>. Activity <terminate> is only available in executable
processes. The two remaining activities are <invoke> and <receive>. So, the
proposal is to allow activities <receive> AND <invoke> to be used at the
beginning of abstract processes.

I hope this short clarification helps.

Regards,

Ivana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 3. März 2004 18:51
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - New issueTriggering activities for
> abstract processes
>
>
> the problem description makes perfect sense to me, but i
> don't understand
> the proposal.  can you elaborate further?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> Description: The current version (BPEL4WS v1.1, May 2003)
> specifies that
> each process (either executable or abstract) must contain at least one
> "start activity" (start activity is either a receive activity
> or a pick
> activity that receives a message and is annotated with the
> createInstance
> attribute set to "yes" to indicate that the occurrence of
> that activity
> causes a new instance of the process to be created).
> This restriction makes less sense for BPEL abstract
> processes. Because of
> this restriction, the abstract process of the party that
> initiates a message
> exchange must be extended and a start activity must be
> introduced (also
> additional WSDL elements, such as port types, messages, must
> be defined as
> well as partner link type). But how the initiating process is
> started is an
> implementation detail and does not have to be included in the
> BPEL abstract
> process since it is not part of the "business protocol".
>
> Submitter's proposal: Allow the invoke activity to be used as
> the start
> activity for abstract processes.
> Changes: 3 Mar 2004 - 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 - 99 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a
> message.
>
> To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but
> the address for
> new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).
>
> 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/leave_workgroup.php.