Re: [wsbpel] Conflicting partnerlinks

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:

> Thinks we need to consider:
>
>Bla:Proc1 and Fasel:Proc2 both define a PartnerLink name="initial"  -
>are outstanding receives allowed?
>
>Bla.Proc1 defines two PartnerLink name="initial" in <scope><partnerLink
>name="initial" /><scope><partnerLink name="initial"
>/>...</sceope></scope> - are two conflicting receives allowed?
>  
>
The other possibility is that these two receives (in both examples) are 
not conflicting since the partner links are distinct, and therefore can 
be enabled simultaneously.

My reading of the spec is that if you declare two partner links, they 
are distinct. As are two instances resulting from two process instances 
or scope instances. The name does not disambiguate globally, nor is it 
the source of distinction.

Assaf


>Greetings
>Bernd
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>  
>

begin:vcard
fn:Assaf Arkin
n:Arkin;Assaf
org:Intalio
adr;dom:;;1000 Bridge Parkway Ste 210;Redwood City;CA;94065
email;internet:arkin@intalio.com
title:Chief Architect
tel;work:(650) 596-1800
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.intalio.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature