[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit<sequence> macro)
Satish Thatte wrote: >Sequences and sequentially linked activities in a flow are not identical. Please look at 12.5.4 for an example. > > I'm going to need a bit more explanation. The first example uses a <sequence> and the second one replaces that with a <flow>. In doing so it changes the behavior of the process. I understood that it does so intentionally to explain the usage of <flow>. Suppose that it intended to preserve the semantics, and so included a join condition for activity B of the form ''getLinkStatus('X') or getLinkStatus('Y')'. In that case, how would the behavior differ between the sequence and the flow? arkin > -----Original Message----- > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] > Sent: Thu 6/12/2003 1:43 PM > To: Eckenfels. Bernd > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro) > > > > Eckenfels. Bernd wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >while implementing the BPEL4WS specification, I noted a few simplifications, which can be added to the runtime mode: > > > >- implicite flow-start links > > If the BPEL4WS parser adds links from a flow parent, to all the unlinked activities within, then the process engine does not have to search all activateable activities, but can just follow the links > > > > > I don't see why this would be a simplification. You would have to > determine all the unlinked activities and add an XML element to link > them to the flow, so essentially you're adding redundant information. If > we added that stuff my issue would then be "it's redundant information, > can't we just take it away?" > > >- implicite sequence links > > Instead of a sequence, the engine can simply use a flow, where all sequenced activities are linked together, that way the engine has not to implement two different scope styles > > > > > Here I would agree. If the semantics are identical then sequence becomes > a shortcut for a flow. > > arkin > > >I notice, that this is not so important for the spec, but especially the second case shows, that there is no need for the sequence activity from a control flow point of few. I guess it would be good to add some comments on this in the spec. Or do i have missed a sematical difference between a sequence and a flow with linked activities? > > > >Greetings > >Bernd > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > >For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]