Issue - 249 - Can multi-start with correlations use implicit correlation?

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 249 - Can multi-start with correlations use implicit correlation?

Status: received
Date added: 21 Mar 2006
Categories: correlation
Date submitted: 21 March 2006
Submitter: Danny van der Rijn
Description: Currently:  If more than one start activity is enabled concurrently, then all such activities MUST 
share at least one common correlationSet (see Correlation and the Multiple Start Activities example).

If a process contains exactly one start activity then the use of correlationSets is unconstrained.

Scenario:

<flow>
    <receive createInstance="yes"/>
    <receive createInstance="yes"/>
</flow>
This is legal, and uses implicit correlation.  Adding unrelated correlations to it:

<flow>
    <receive createInstance="yes">
       <correlation set ="foo" initiate="yes"/>
    </receive>


    <receive createInstance="yes">
       <correlation set ="bar" initiate="yes"/>
    </receive>
</flow>

Is illegal according to the current text.  IMO this is inconsistent with our previous resolutions.
Changes: 21 Mar 2006 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 249 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 249 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).