[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 37 - F2F Presentation Draft
Hi, Yuzo and all others, Regarding to Issue 37, we need to choose between (1A) or (1B) semantics. I am just think out loud ... Do we need to accomodate the following situation?? ----------------------------------------- <sequence> <flow> <sequence> <invoke op1 with initiating CS1A from request with service-provider-A /> <receive op2 matching with initiated CS1A and initiating CS2 with service-provider-A /> </sequence> <sequence> <invoke op1 with initiating CS1B from request with service-provider-B /> <receive op2 matching with initiated CS1B and initiating CS2 with service-provider-B /> </sequence> </flow> <invoke op3 with initiated CS2 with service-provider-C /> <receive op4 ... /> <sequence> ----------------------------------------- E.g.: Let me try to provide some business semantics for this process: let say this is a person background screening process. Step - 1: (op1 and op2) given employee name profile, retrieve its SSN. Step - 2: (op3 and op4) given SSN, check his or her background. Please note that : (i) Step-1 will be done in a parallel fashion. Step-2 will proceed whichever provider respond first. (ii) CS1A contains the temporary id for this person (maybe a UUID) and provider-id for provider-A (iii) CS1B contains the same temporary id for this person (maybe a UUID) and provider-id for provider-B (iii) CS2 contains the SSN. (iv) receive-op2 is NOT a start activity If we choose (1A), it may give us some unnecessary complication? (Can this be also related to Issue 4 or parallel for-each?) Regards, Alex Yiu Yuzo Fujishima wrote: Hi, Please find attached a presentation draft for Issue 37 to be used at the comming F2F meeting, hopefully. Yuzo Fujishima NEC Corporation |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]