RE: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote

["John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>]

+1, although "could potentially execute" is a bit fuzzy.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:51 PM
> To: wsbpeltc
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote
> 
> Here is a rough draft for a proposal for vote for issue 9. Thoughts? 
> comments?
> 	Thanks,
> 		Yaron
> 
> Section 5:
> 
> Change: BPEL4WS takes it as a general principle that compliant 
> implementations MAY choose to perform static analysis to detect and 
> reject process definitions that may have undefined semantics. Such 
> analysis is necessarily pessimistic and therefore might in some cases 
> prevent the use of processes that would not, in fact, create 
> situations 
> with undefined semantics, either in specific uses or in any use.
> 
> To: BPEL4WS takes it as a general principle that compliant 
> implementations MAY choose to perform static analysis to detect and 
> reject process definitions that may have undefined semantics. Such 
> analysis MUST be performed optimistically, that is, if a 
> process could 
> potentially execute correctly then the process MUST be accepted for 
> execution.
> 
> 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.
> 
>