Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 151 - Allow a new process instance to be createdby "pick onAlarm until"

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

I just wanted to go on the record as saying that I believe this feature 
is an issue for deployment/configuration and therefore out of scope for 
BPEL. I want to echo Ron's comments that process designers more often 
than not are not in a position to know what actual values should be used 
and therefore this is something that should be set at deployment time by 
the deployment admin.

		Thanks,

			Yaron

ws-bpel issues list editor wrote:
> 
> 
> This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is 
> posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> on a regular 
> basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version 
> of the document entitled ** in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC 
> document list 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> - 
> the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list 
> editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is 
> announced, is available at this constant URL 
> <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html>.
> 
> 
>     Issue - 151 - Allow a new process instance to be created by "pick
>     onAlarm until"
> 
> *Status:* open
> *Categories:* State management <#category_state_management>
> *Date added:* 26 Jul 2004
> *Submitter:* Ugo Corda <mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> *Date submitted:* 23 July 2004
> *Description:* Currently the spec does not allow a Pick with 
> createInstance=yes when alarms are specified. I don't see a good 
> rationale for having this restriction in the case onAlarm specifies a 
> particular time for the associated activities to occur ("until" case).
> 
> Relaxing this restriction would be useful when we want a process 
> instance to start at a particular time, possibly on a periodical base. 
> An alternative way of achieving the same effect would be by defining a 
> receive from a "partner" representing the deployment environment, and 
> having the environment itself send a message at the appropriate time. 
> But I think it would be more clear if we use the pick-onAlarm construct 
> instead.
> *Links:* Ugo Corda, 22 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00165.html>     
> Dieter Koenig1, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00170.html>     
> Dieter Roller, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00171.html>     
> Ugo Corda, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00174.html>     
> Ugo Corda, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00175.html>     
> Ron Ten-Hove, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00183.html>     
> Prasad Yendluri, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00184.html>     
> Prasad Yendluri, 23 Jul 2004 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200407/msg00184.html>
> *Changes:* 26 Jul 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 - 151 - [anything]" or is a reply to 
> such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution, please 
> start the subject line "Issue - 151 - Proposed resolution", without any 
> Re: or similar.
> 
> 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/leave_workgroup.php. 
> 
>