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 - 114 - Proposal to Vote



>Koening: The point is that for multiple cs with initiate="no", each cs individually
>must resolve to the same process instance. In other words, for each cs
>individually, the corresponding property values from the received message
>form a secondary key for the SAME process instance.
>Kind Regards
>DK
>  
>
mm1: Thanks, Dieter. You clarified the statement. I have suggested 
augmented text that further clarifies the intent based on the original 
proposal, my question and your response. See below Thanks.  

(1) Add text to the specification that clarifies the semantics in
presenceof multiple correlation sets:

<clarification>
If multiple correlation sets with initiate="no" are used in a receive,
pick/onMessage, or eventHandler/onEvent, then <<EACH CORRELATION SET MUST INDIVIDUALLY
RESOLVE TO THE SAME PROCESS INSTANCE.  WHERE MULTIPLE CORRELATION SETS OCCUR WITH INITIATE="NO", THE CORRESPONDING PROPERTY VALUES FROM THE RECEIVED MESSAGE OF EACH CORRELATION SET MUST MATCH>> for that message to be delivered to the activity in the given process instance.
</clarification>

(2) Ignore all references to EPRs in this issue and revisit that when
34 is
resolved.

>>mm1: Dieter, on (1), the sentence is a bit unclear. Are you saying the
>>"they must all match a message <property values> must all match for
>>that message to be
>>delivered....? Perhaps you could clarify. Thanks.
>>    
>>
>
>mm2: Cut and past error. Are you saying the "they must all match a
>message <property values> for that message to be
>delivered....?"
>  
>



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