Issue 33: proposed change to the specification

["Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>]

Title: Message

Hi all,

 

Since the resolution of  issue 33 doesn't include concrete proposal of changes to the spec, the editors have a lot of leeway about where to change and what to actually say. Here is what I am thinking to implement the resolution. Please let me know your thoughts. If it looks OK with all of us, I will check in the changes end of Monday.   

 

since the race conditions could occur to more than one activities, I am considering to add a subsection under "Defining Business Process". The TOC will look like:

 

6. Defining a Business Process

6.1. Initial Example

6.2. The Structure of a Business Process

6.3.  Handling Race Conditions

6.4. Language Extensibility

6.5. The Lifecycle of a Business Process

 

the wording will be:

 

6.3. Handling Race Conditions

As a caveat, it's worth to point out that run time race conditions may occur in certain occasions of executing a business process.  For example, messages may arrive before their targeting "receive" activity is instantiated because the runtime engine is too overloaded to receive fast enough.  Process engines may employ different mechanisms to handle race conditions. This specification doesn't mandate a particular mechanism, but it assumes that the engines take care of race conditions in a way that the process behaves as if no race condition was encountered . For example, in case a message  arrives before a "receive" is activated, the engine may queue the message or store it in some other manners and make it available to the "receive" activity as soon as it becomes active, but to the message sender, the message always appears being processed as if it was received after the "receive" is activated.

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 02:09 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Liu, Kevin; bpel spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

Works for me..

Satish Thatte wrote:

I suggest the following order.  Prasad fixes 101 and 117.  Then Kevin fixes 33.  Then I fix 25 and 53.  How does that sound?