OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Do we need the createInstance attribute?

Good point.  We need clarity on whether all initial activities must (A)
be receives or picks and assuming that (B) must have createInstance set
to "yes".  

I expect there are various opinions on this ..


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:54 AM
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: Satish Thatte; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Do we need the createInstance attribute?

Yaron Goland wrote:

>I think an editorial change that describes 'createInstance' as a marker
of a
>start activity, explains that it is redundant and then describes why it
>there anyway should do nicely. Can we add that to the list you are
>maintaining of things for the editors to do?
Does this really answer the original question you posed? Is the sample 
process fragment you supplied considered illegal?

I can easily imagine someone trying to exploit such a "feature" if it 
was not explicitly banned. Borrowing from your example:

      <receive partnerLink="A" createInstance="yes".../>
      <receive partnerLink="B" createInstance="no".../>

This could be used by partner B as a kind of polling mechanism to see if

partner A has done his thing yet. Kind of an event handler for process 
instances that don't exist. Useful for non-deterministic (parallel) 
sections of a choreography.

Do we wish to support this usage, or ban it? I think we need some 
explicit wording one way or the other.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]