[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 271 - ConflictingReceive with Different CorrelationSets
Mark, I agree. So the result would be something like this: Moreover, if a business process instance simultaneously enables two or more receive activities for the same partnerLink, portType, operation but different correlationSet(s), and the correlations of multiple of these activities match an incoming request message, then conflictingReceive must also be thrown by each of these activities. Kind Regards DK Dieter König Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220 Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464 Germany "Mark Ford" <mark.ford@active -endpoints.com> To <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> 29.04.2006 12:35 cc Subject RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 271 - ConflictingReceive with Different Correlation Sets I assume that you intend to fault both of the receives with a bpel:conflictingReceive. This should be made explicit in the spec text. There is also another case where R1 and R2 contain the same data for their correlation sets. In this case we could detect the conflicting receive at the point of execution of the second receive and only fault it. From: ws-bpel issues list editor [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:51 PM To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 271 - ConflictingReceive with Different Correlation Sets 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 - 271 - ConflictingReceive with Different Correlation Sets Status: received Date added: 28 Apr 2006 Date submitted: 28 April 2006 Submitter: Dieter Koenig1 Document: WS-BPEL 2.0 Committee Draft Description: Section 10.4 defines cases where conflictingReceive must be thrown: A business process instance MUST NOT simultaneously enable two or more receive activities for the same partnerLink, portType, operation and correlationSet(s). This definition does not provide the uniqueness required to unambigously route an incoming request message to the right inbound message activity. Consider two simultaneously enabled activities (today not a conflictingReceive because of different correlation sets): <receive partnerLink="PL1" portType="PT1" operation="OP" ...> <correlations> <correlation set="CS1" initiate="no"/> </correlations> <receive/> <receive partnerLink="PL1" portType="PT1" operation="OP" ...> <correlations> <correlation set="CS2" initiate="no"/> </correlations> <receive/> In a scenario where BOTH CS1 AND CS2 match an incoming request, conflictingReceive should also be thrown. Submitter's proposal: Add text following the sentence quoted above: Moreover, if a business process instance simultaneously enables two or more receive activities for the same partnerLink, portType, operation but different correlationSet(s), and the correlations of multiple of these activities match an incoming request message, then conflictingReceive must also be thrown". Changes: 28 Apr 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 - 271 - [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 - 271 - 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]