[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 218 - informal recap of discussion (fowarding an email conv with Alexandre to the TC list)
Hi all,
Here is a part of the email that I sent to Alexandre previously on the isolation topic on MessageExchange
**last week**:
===================================
I tend to think messageExchange is a token to retrieve/access a state facet of a partnerLink. messageExchange does NOT contain a state. The open/close state of IMA is NOT stored in messageExchange. It is still stored within a partnerLink ... I think. The messageExchange is merely an id to retrieve that open/close state of IMA, as we may have multiple conversation going on a particular parnterLink. Therefore, I think isolation would not block concurrency based messageExchange alone. But, it will block concurrency based on access partnerLink state. [AYIU's additional note as of Jan 11, 2006:
if we decide to apply isolation to message
exchange state in partnerLink; as of discussion on Jan 10, 2006,
we tend to not to use isolation ]
I would try to discuss the following questions with this train of thought ... (BTW, I still have not made up my mind regarding all the details how isolation is applied to messageExchange.) (Also note: isolation would be super vendor-implementation dependent area.) See more inline ... [AYIU's additional note as of Jan 11, 2006:
the following email is based on the assumption,
if we decide to apply isolation to message exchange state ] aalves@bea.com wrote: >Hi Chris, > >I have a few comments: >- how does the concept of IMA play along isolated scopes? If a IMA is closed within a isolated scope, when does the process sees this status change, immediately or when the isolated scope finishes? > No. The status change is a part of partnerLink state change. If other concurrent parts of process tries to access the partnerLink state, it would get block. It would see just "before" and "after" picture in terms of isolated scope completion. Not the "immediate" version. Similar to control status status, I guess (?) >While an isolated scope is being executed that started with a open IMA, could a concurrent flow in the process close the IMA > No. Similar reasoning to the above. A concurrent flow can close the IMA only after the isolated scope which opens the IMA is done. (I hope I understand your question correctly) >and cause a missingRequest fault to be raised within the isolated scope? > > If the isolated scope which opens the IMA got executed finished first, the missingRequest fault would not happen, because the isolated scope would block the closing action until the isolated scope finishes. If the isolated scope which opens the IMA got executed after the other concurrent part of the process which tries to close the IMA, then missingRequest would happen. >- onEvent and parallel for-each can only have default message exchanges, whereas scopes can also have custom message exchanges, right? > > I am not sure I follow your questions here ... All scopes can have custom message exchange, regardless whether they are vanilla scope or scope for onEvent or parallel for-each. =================================== Regards,
Alex Yiu
From Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>
Sent Tue 1/10/2006 7:50 PM
To wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc Chris Keller <chris.keller@active-endpoints.com>; Alexandre Alves <aalves@bea.com>; Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>
Subject [wsbpel] Issue 218 - informal recap of discussion Hi all, Informal recap of discussion today:
I hope these wording reflects the intended semantics that we discussed today. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]