+1
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi DK,
Dieter wrote:
I added a new paragraph at the end of 10.4 because the
missingReply was no longer mentioned (!) after the restructuring. I then
added the 221 resolution text to the end of the main section in chapter 12
(i.e. before 12.1.).
Thank you for reminding us about that.
About the new paragraph that you added, I have some minor suggestions:
A receive activity for an inbound request/response
operation is said to be open if that activity has been performed and no
corresponding reply activity has been performed. If the process
instance reaches the end of its behavior, and one or more receive
activities remain open, then the standard fault bpws:missingReply MUST
be thrown by a conforming implementation.
It does not mention detailed logic in section 12 "Scopes". The text was
from the description of missingReply, which is not linked/updated with
resolution Issue 221. I suggest make some minor modification to Section
10.4 and Section 12 to link these paragraphs together:
New text for Section 10.4:
A receive activity for an inbound request/response
operation is said to be open if that activity has been performed and no
corresponding reply activity has been performed. If the process or scope instance
reaches the end of its behavior, and one or more receive
activities are detected open,
then the standard fault bpws:missingReply is
thrown by a conforming implementation. For
details of detection semantics of open inbound message operation,
please refer to Section 12 "Scopes".
Since the detailed logic resides in Section 12, we'd better avoid
duplication normative terms (e.g. "MUST be") here.
In Section 12, we would need to modify the text a little bit for
generalization to connect with Section 10.4.
From:
When a scope reaches the end of
its behavior then all Web service interactions dependent on partner
links or
message exchanges declared inside of the scope must be completed. The
standard
fault bpws:missingReply can be detected during termination of a
scope, if one or more receive operations using a partner link or
message
exchange defined in the scope remain open.
To:
When a scope or process instance
reaches the end of
its behavior then all Web service interactions dependent on partner
links or
message exchanges declared inside of the scope
or process instance must be completed. The standard
fault bpws:missingReply can be detected during the
end of a scope
or
process, if one or more receive operations using a
partner link or message
exchange defined in the scope remain open. Please
note that the "scope" term used in the rest of missingReply detection
and generation semantics are applicable to process as well for brevity,
except bullet point number 4, as process definition does not have a
termination handler.
Note: I replace "termination of a scope" with "the end of a scope". As
I suggested before "termination of a scope" has loaded meaning in BPEL
spec. We need to use that term carefully. Sorry that I missed that part
during the review of Issue 221 resolution.
How does that sound to people?
If sounds good, I will file an A.I. with the link pointing back to
this email.
Thanks!!!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
Hi Paco, I am done with spec editing for 221, 232, 237 ====> THE PEN IS
YOURS (current version is 1.112)!
Notes to the whole spec editing team:
Re 221: after restructuring the spec, the anchor point (in former section
14.4) was lost. I added a new paragraph at the end of 10.4 because the
missingReply was no longer mentioned (!) after the restructuring. I then
added the 221 resolution text to the end of the main section in chapter 12
(i.e. before 12.1.).
Re 232: I changed the repeatUntil activity description according to the
issue resolution. Note that there is almost identical text in two places.
Re 237: I changed the if activity description according to the issue
resolution. I also changed an example that still contained the switch (!)
activity.
Kind Regards
DK
|