[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote
+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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]