RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 123 - Matching <reply> with <receive>

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Very good summary.  Thanks Yuzo.

Satish
-----Original Message-----
From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:03 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 123 - Matching <reply> with <receive>

Hi,

Below is my attempt to summarize the discussion so far.

== Two of the arguably most popular resolution ideas for Issue 123 ==

Note: We can change the name of the attributes and elements later if
necessary. Let's concentrate on the model now.

R1: Put messageExchange attribute on the receive and the reply, only
when
needed to disambiguate the correspondence.

     ...
     <receive messageExchange="me1" ...>
     ...
     <reply messageExchange="me1" ...>
     ...

R1a: Put messageExchange attribute on the receive and the reply, only
when
needed to disambiguate the correspondence. Have the enclosing scope have
messageExchanges element.

   ...
   <scope ...>
     <messageExchanges>
       <messageExchange name="me1"/>
     </messageExchanges>
     ...
     <receive messageExchange="me1" ...>
     ...
     <reply messageExchange="me1" ...>
     ...
   </scope>
   ...

== Comparison ==

                  R1:            R1a:

Concept:         Simple         Simple

Terseness:       Good           Fair

Name collision   Harder         Easier
prevention:

MEP lifetime:    Unclearer      Clearer

Consistency:     Poor           Good

Concept: The concepts behind R1 and R1a are the same: the receive and
the
reply belong to the same message exchange pattern instance.

Terseness: R1a requires messageExchanges and messageExchange elements.

Name collision prevention: With R1, the process designer has to check
all
the messageExchange attributes in a process before adding a new one for
a new receive-reply pair. With R1a, s/he has to check only the
inner-most
common scope for the new pair and its child scopes that contain either
of
the pair.

MEP lifetime: With R1a the lifetime of a MEP instance is limited to that
of the scope where it is defined. With R1, there is no such limitation.

Consistency: All other referenciable constructs of BPEL are explicitly
defined somewhere in a process definition. R1 is inconsistent in that
the
messageExchange referenced is not defined anywhere.

== Personal Opinion ==

I prefer R1a because of the easiness of the name collision prevention
and
the consistency with the other parts of BPEL.

Yuzo Fujishima
NEC Corporation


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_workgr
oup.php.