Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers

[Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>]

Satish's and Edwin's interpretations match mine, and I've always believed
that to be the original intent of all the authors (who should correct me if
I am wrong). On the other hand, it is a fair question to ask whether we
really need to allow multiple "copies" of an event handler to execute
concurrently, as opposed to serializing the handling of each message
received by the handler's onMessage activity. I would vote for
serialization (of each execution of the same handler) if only because I
don't have any scenario in mind that justifies the complexity of full
concurrent execution of multiple copies of the same handler.

Paco



                                                                                                                                                    
                      "Yuzo Fujishima"                                                                                                              
                      <fujishima@bc.jp.        To:       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                              
                      nec.com>                 cc:                                                                                                  
                                               Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers                                 
                      07/04/2003 09:14                                                                                                              
                      PM                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                    




Chunbo, Edwin

According to a messge from Satish,
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200305/msg00131.html
Edwin's view seems to be closer to the original authors' intention.

The problem is that the specification itself allows at least two
interpretations. I raised this issue to clarify which is the right one.
After the discussion and the issue/requirementprocess mature,
I probably propose a motion to pick one iterpretation.

Yuzo


Chunbo> Hi Yuzo,
Chunbo>
Chunbo> I think the link status is maintained at process instance level,
not based
Chunbo> on the thread level.  So A and B will be synced as far as they
belong to the
Chunbo> same process instance.
Chunbo>
Chunbo> -Chunbo

Edwin> Yuzo,
Edwin> Thank you for the example. It seems that in that specific case, each
message
Edwin> would create a new flow activity. So if you have 4  messages, you
end up
Edwin> with 4 instances of the flow activity (all running concurrently).
Each flow
Edwin> activity instance will have its own AtoB link. No?
Edwin> Edwin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org