[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 118 - When are Correlation Sets Mandatory?
Yaron Y. Goland wrote: >> This change would preclude start activities without a correlation set; >> for example if every time I get a message on some port I want to start a >> new process but there is nothing unique in the received message (the >> operation may have an input message with no unique parts). To make this >> more concrete, if I have a process for making pizza's, I might want the >> makePizza(toppings) operation start the process. In this case there is >> nothing in the makePizza input message to uniquely identify the new >> pizza process (topping not being unique), so there is nothing to >> initiate a correlation set with. > > > There had to be some sort of correlation or the message would never > have reached the BPEL instance in the first place. For the scenario > you describe I would recommend Issue 96, engine managed correlation. > In this case the 'correlation' is just the URI assigned to the process > instance. This would fully support the scenario you describe but be > consistent with our correlation model. My understanding is that there is no BPEL instance to speak of, a new one is created in order to process the instantiating message. So the message does not need to identify the instance. Receive message, create instance, deliver message to that one (and no other) instance. Now, receive message, extract correlation, create instance, set correlation, find instance using correlation, deliver to that instance is equivalent behavior with a lot of redundancy thrown in. Similarly, the URI would be assigned not to a process instance, but to an endpoint that creates new process instances. Firing /n /messages at said URI would result in the creation of /n /process instances. Assaf
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]