[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)
The fundamental problem with cycles that do not follow the loop pattern is that there are multiple follow-on activities at the point of return, only some of which participate in the cycle. In such cases it becomes unclear what the cycling back "means", i.e. what is to be repeated. I believe there is an example in the WSFL specification. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:16 AM To: Satish Thatte Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro) Satish Thatte wrote: >The DAG restriction has to do with the difficulty of providing semantics >in the presence of cycles. WSFL already had this restriction. > Interesting. Yes, cycles do complicate analysis of process properties, but unfortunately a lot of business processes involve cycles that cannot be reduced to <while> loops. A lot of ad hoc processes, when mapped to an executable form, cannot be reduced to a cycle-free graph. While this limits our ability to analyse the properties of such processes, the need to automate them still exists. Should we not allow cycles in process graphs, with some caveats about the ability of tools and run-time systems to deal with the complications that necessarily arise? -Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]