In today's call, I said that I
would look into this issue. The results of
my research are below.
The current draft of the spec (1.157) has the text from Dieter's note
(extracted below) already in it at lines 3491-4. It appears that this
issue is already edited into the spec. In addition, SA00059 in the
draft
appendix already refers the the "new" language. I have no
recollection of
whether we actually voted on it.
Danny
"If a process has multiple start activities with correlation sets then
all
such activities MUST share at least one common correlationSet and all
common correlationSets defined on all the activities MUST have the
value of
the initiate attribute be set to "join" (see section 9. Correlation). "
So my research shows that I have already researched this ;-) The
results above indicate that the spec already reflects the change that
both Dieter and I agree to in this mail thread. I propose that for the
(unclear) record, we adopt the language that is already in the accepted
spec, which we've voted on, excerpted above.
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
AFAIK, this text went into the spec during our
small editing team review of
chapter 10 (which has been adopted by the TC).
So the question would probably be whether it should become an issue
(open,
close, apply, etc.), just for the records.
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
Danny van
der
Rijn
<dannyv@tibco.com To
> Dieter
Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
cc
31.05.2006 20:20
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 249 -
Can
multi-start with correlations
use
implicit
correlation?
In today's call, I said that I would look into this issue. The results
of
my research are below.
The current draft of the spec (1.157) has the text from Dieter's note
(extracted below) already in it at lines 3491-4. It appears that this
issue is already edited into the spec. In addition, SA00059 in the
draft
appendix already refers the the "new" language. I have no
recollection of
whether we actually voted on it.
Danny
"If a process has multiple start activities with correlation sets then
all
such activities MUST share at least one common correlationSet and all
common correlationSets defined on all the activities MUST have the
value of
the initiate attribute be set to "join" (see section 9. Correlation). "
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
+1 (the example must not be rejected). The current wording for
start
activities which requires that "all such activities MUST share at
least one
common correlationSet" needs to be aligned with the fact that
correlation
sets are always optional.
In addition, when (portable) WS-BPEL correlation sets are used
concurrently
with other (non-portable) correlation mechanisms then an explicit
statement
should be made that in case of conflicts WS-BPEL correlation sets
take
precedence over other correlation mechanisms. With that, the
statement
should be modified in the following way:
If a process has multiple start activities with correlation sets
then
all
such activities MUST share at least one common correlationSet and
all
common correlationSets defined on all the activities MUST have the
value of
the initiate attribute be set to "join".
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
ws-bpel issues
list editor
<peter.furniss@ch
To
oreology.com>
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
21.03.2006 21:47
Subject
[wsbpel] Issue - 249 - Can
Please respond to multi-start with
correlations
use
wsbpel@lists.oasi implicit correlation?
s-open.org
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|