Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

See inline Satish.

>Thatte2: I see.  I have very serious reservations about the use of <opaque> activities.  I think they would be misleading to use in most scenarios.  I explained my thoughts in the original posting.
> 
>Having said that, I thought the idea of <opaque> was that anything without <opaque> was as ready for execution as anyone could tell.  What additional checks would one do?
>
>	
>Thatte1:......I don't quite understand what you mean by "statically verifiable set of
>	conditions to specify when a process model is ready to execute".  I
>	would hope that abstractProcess="no" and the schema for executable
>	processes plus simple static checks that we already have in the text
>	which we should gather in a list (issue 84) should be sufficient.  Did
>	you have something else in mind?
>
mm1 - (from Ron Ten-Hove and I) for a statically verifiable set of 
conditions to specify when a process model is ready to execute:

   1. No <from opaque="yes"> elements in <assign> activities.
   2. No <opaque> activities
   3. No other use of opaque placeholders that we may devise.
   4. All variables are initialized before use (where statically verifiable)
   5. No omission of variable reference attributes in <invoke>,
      <receive>, <reply>, and <onMessage> activities.
          * Variable reference attributes defined (augmenting #5 a bit).
   6. Start activity defined (serves as a trigger for the executable
      process).

This is only a starting set. Thanks.