[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - New issueTriggering activities for abstract processes
Danny, The idea is to allow any activity to be used at the beginning of a BPEL abstract process. What does it mean "any activity"? Syntactically a bpel process (either executable or abstract) includes exactly one activity; for a complex control flow the <process> element must encompass a complex activity, such as <sequence>, <flow>, etc. Therefore, "any activity" really refers to "basic" activities (<empty>, <invoke>, <receive>, <reply>, <assign>, <wait> and <terminate>). For abstract processes some of these activities at the beginning of the process do not make sense. From my point of view the following activities do not make sense: <empty>, <reply>, <assign> and <wait>. Activity <terminate> is only available in executable processes. The two remaining activities are <invoke> and <receive>. So, the proposal is to allow activities <receive> AND <invoke> to be used at the beginning of abstract processes. I hope this short clarification helps. Regards, Ivana > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] > Sent: Mittwoch, 3. März 2004 18:51 > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - New issueTriggering activities for > abstract processes > > > the problem description makes perfect sense to me, but i > don't understand > the proposal. can you elaborate further? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Description: The current version (BPEL4WS v1.1, May 2003) > specifies that > each process (either executable or abstract) must contain at least one > "start activity" (start activity is either a receive activity > or a pick > activity that receives a message and is annotated with the > createInstance > attribute set to "yes" to indicate that the occurrence of > that activity > causes a new instance of the process to be created). > This restriction makes less sense for BPEL abstract > processes. Because of > this restriction, the abstract process of the party that > initiates a message > exchange must be extended and a start activity must be > introduced (also > additional WSDL elements, such as port types, messages, must > be defined as > well as partner link type). But how the initiating process is > started is an > implementation detail and does not have to be included in the > BPEL abstract > process since it is not part of the "business protocol". > > Submitter's proposal: Allow the invoke activity to be used as > the start > activity for abstract processes. > Changes: 3 Mar 2004 - new issue > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > ---- > > To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should > automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the > subject line as > you send it starts "Issue - 99 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a > message. > > To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but > the address for > new issue submission is the sender of this announcement). > > 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/le > ave_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/le > ave_workgroup.php. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]