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] Issue 69 - Proposal to vote (new)


Bernd,

Yes (... and no). Your interpretation is correct, an activity nested 
inside a while that is linked to an activity outside the while would not 
be allowed under the current definition; however, this particular case 
would have also been prohibited under the old definition. So in either 
case you would need to use a variable to communicate the status of the 
activity inside a while. The gist of 69 is to extend the prohibition to 
cases where both the source and target activity are within the while, but 
the link is declared outside. Another way to put this (at least for the 
case of the while) would be to say that links declared outside a while 
activity are not in scope to activities inside the while activity, hence 
the an activity inside a while cannot be the source/target of a link 
declared outside the while.

-Maciej

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:01:53 +0100, Eckenfels. Bernd 
<B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> wrote:

> I like this clearification, it only brings one restriction: in your 
> while example:
>
> If i want to write a while loop, which is checking something to decide 
> if a condition is meet (i.e. is one of the loop instances signalling ok) 
> i could do that with an outbound link from wihin the while to the 
> outside scope. This is i think no longer allowd? The workaround would be 
> to use assign to a variable, right?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> Bernd Eckenfels
> Chief Architect
> --
> SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
> Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
> mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 69 - Proposal to vote (new)
>
>
>
>
> All,
> Updated proposal for 69:
>  - new subject for script magic
>  - added Satish's clarification of def in 12.5
>  - replaced "defined" with "declared" (i.e. links are declared)
>
> Section 12.5: Flow
> Change the following text:
> OLD:In general, a link is said to cross the boundary of a syntactic
> construct if the source activity for the link is nested within the 
> construct
> but the target activity is not, or vice versa, if the target activity for
> the link is nested within the construct but the source activity is not.
> NEW: A link is said to cross the boundary of a syntactic construct if the
> source or target activity for the link is nested within the construct 
> while
> the link is declared outside the construct. Note that it is possible for 
> a
> link to cross the boundary of a syntactic construct even in those cases
> where both the source and the target activities are nested within the 
> same
> construct: so long as the link is /declared/ outside that construct.
>
> Section 12.5.1: Link Semantics
> Insert the following text:
> EXISTING: The precise semantics of link status evaluation are as follows:
> NEW:      The link status is a tri-state flag associated with each 
> declared
> link. This flag may be in the following three states: "positive",
> "negative", or "unset". Each time a certain flow activity is activated, 
> the
> link status of all the links declared in that activity is "unset", that 
> is
> the lifetime of the status of a link is exactly the lifetime of the flow
> activity within which it is declared.
> EXISTING: When activity A completes, the following steps are performed to
> determine the effect of the synchronization links on other activities:
>
> The above changes imply option C (if you all remember the options).  The
> second part is essentially Satish's earlier proposal in the context of 
> the
> current language, while the first part addresses the problem brought up 
> by
> Yaron in the conference call relating to while loops that use links 
> declared
> outside the while loop. The major consequence of the above changes is 
> that
> the following is no longer permitted:
> <flow name="f1">
>   <link name="l1">
>   <while>
>     <flow name="f2">
>       <empty>
>         <source linkName="l1"/>
>       </empty>
>       <empty>
>         <target linkName="l1"/>
>       </empty>
>     </flow>
>   </while>
> </flow>
>
> The link "l1" will now need to be declared in "f2".
>
> The issue of whether links are belong in scopes as opposed to flows will 
> be
> made a separate issue.
>
> -Maciej
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


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