Re: [wsbpel] Dead Path Elimination and Join Conditions

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

The contradiction is one of semantics.  There can be no "dead paths" in such a case, since a join condition later in the path can "resuscitate" the path.

The sentinel case you describe can easily be coded differently, say as the 2nd activity in a sequence, where the first is a flow.  After the flow completes, the sentinel can check conditions.  Of course, it can't check link status, but I don't see that as a huge obstacle.

Danny

andrew.francis@mail.mcgill.ca wrote:

Hello Danny:

  

This is in contradiction with my understanding of
dead-path elimination. I would prefer to disallow
joinConditions whose expression does not require a
true input in order that the join condition evaluate
to true. Comments?
    

I do not see how your example contradicts sections
12.5.1 (link semantics) or 12.5.2 (dead path elimination)?
I think your example is strange but not pathological.
Let us pretend the programmer does not like fault handlers
and structured the process as a graph with one end activity:
Third. In turn, the programmer wants activity "Third" to
be a sentinel or assert of sorts, executing only if activity
"Second" failed. If my understanding is correct, if "Second"
executes and sets "secondToThird"'s transitionCode to true,
Third's joinCondition will evaluate to false, not run, and
the process is finished: after all nothing bad happened ....
and this is what the programmer intended.
Cheers,
Andrew