[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 27 - Proposal to vote - Setting link status in case of transitioncondition
The link status issue is really more
general than this as Goran pointed out during the call. A scope can always
fault in an unrelated place while one or more transition conditions within it are
being evaluated, in this case, transition conditions on other links sourced at
the same source scope. It is impossible to specify the exact behavior in such
races in the presence of true (multi-processor) concurrency. If the evaluation
of the conditions is not complete (i.e., the link has not actually set its
status) then the link status is False. In the case of the fault occurring in
the evaluation of the transition condition itself the evaluation of the
condition is not complete and therefore the link status is False. From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] True. This aspect was clarified in the discussions
related to this issue but did not make into the
Also from the discussion on issue 27 I get that the local variables of the scope cannot be used to evaluate the transition condition of the links and only the variables of the parent scope should be used. This needs to be documented explicitly as well.
-Ashwini
Assaf Arkin wrote:
> Proposal to resolve issue 27 by adding the following paragraph to the > specification in the description of how links are handled (pages 64/65): > > Note that the transition condition is evaluated after the activity has > completed. If an error occurs while evaluating the transition condition, > that error does not affect the completion status of the activity and is > handled by the activity's enclosing scope. In the case of > scopes, completion does not necessarily imply successful completion. A > scope may suffer an internal fault and yet complete (unsuccessfully) if > there is a corresponding fault handler associated with the scope and > that fault handler completes without throwing a fault. > > arkin > > (This is the same proposal sent on Sep 30, resent for your convenience)
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]