[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-comment] wording for conflictingReceive andambiguousReceive
I think that replacing "two or more receive activities" with "two or more instances of receive activities" could suitably clarify this. Marlon Dumas wrote: > The following statement may need to be clarified in the spec: "If during > the execution of a business process instance, two or more receive > activities for the same partnerLink, operation and correlationSet(s) are > simultaneously enabled, then the standard fault bpel:conflictingReceive > MUST be thrown." > > In this constraint, "two or more receive activities" should not be > interpreted as meaning "two or more instances of the same receive > activity", but instead: "two or more instances of different receive > activities". Indeed, it is possible that the same "receive activity" > within a scope nested in an event handler or parallel foreach, is > "enabled" multiple times simultaneously, possibly once for each instance > of the scope. In such cases, I am assuming that "conflictingReceive" > should not be thrown (otherwise, most "receive activities" appearing > in a parallel foreach or event handler would unavoidably lead to faults). > Consider the following example: > <foreach ... parallel="yes" ...> > <scope> > <partnerLinks> > <partnerLink name="PL1" ... /> > </partnerLinks> > <correlationSets> > <correlationSet name="S1" ... />+ > </correlationSets> > <invoke name="RA1" partnerLink="PL1" ... operation="OP1" > inputVariable="..."> > <correlation set="S1" initiate="yes"/> > </invoke> > <receive name="RA" partnerLink="PL1" ... operation="OP1" ...> > <correlation set="S1" initiate="no"/> > </receive> > </scope> > </foreach> > > In this example, it is likely that multiple instances of the IMA "RA" > may be enabled simultaneously. But no "conflictingReceive" would be > thrown. > > On the other hand, the following example may lead to a > "conflictingReceive", as one instance of activity "RA1" may be enabled > at the same time as one instance of "RA2". > <flow> > <receive name="RA1" partnerLink="PL1" portType="PT1" operation="OP1" > ...> > <correlation set="S1" .../> > </receive> > <receive name="RA2" partnerLink="PL1" portType="PT1" operation="OP1"> > <correlation set="S1" .../> > </receive> > </flow> > > The first example discussed above also illustrates that the wording in > the definition of "ambiguousReceive" in Appendix A warrants some > clarification. The current definition says: "Thrown when a business > process instance simultaneously enables two or more IMAs for the same > partnerLink, portType, operation but different correlationSets, and the > correlations of multiple of these activities match an incoming > request message." The above is an example where two enabled instances of > the same IMA may match the same incoming message. > > Kind regards > > Marlon Dumas > > > > > This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the > OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WSBPEL) TC. > > In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and > to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required > before posting. > > Subscribe: wsbpel-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > Unsubscribe: wsbpel-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > List help: wsbpel-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org > List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel-comment/ > Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php > Committee: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]