[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote
++1 - no more wiggle room. Thank you for the clarification. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:03 PM > To: John Evdemon > Cc: wsbpeltc > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote > > Fair enough. How'z about: > BPEL4WS takes it as a general principle that compliant > implementations > MAY choose to perform static analysis to detect and reject process > definitions that may have undefined semantics. Such analysis MUST be > performed optimistically, that is, assuming the process has > no syntactic > errors then if there exists at least one execution path from > each start > activity in the process that can complete successfully then > the process > MUST be accepted for execution. > > Yaron > > > John Evdemon wrote: > > > > > > > +1, although "could potentially execute" is a bit fuzzy. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:51 PM > > > To: wsbpeltc > > > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - Rought Draft of a proposal to vote > > > > > > Here is a rough draft for a proposal for vote for issue > 9. Thoughts? > > > comments? > > > Thanks, > > > Yaron > > > > > > Section 5: > > > > > > Change: BPEL4WS takes it as a general principle that compliant > > > implementations MAY choose to perform static analysis to > detect and > > > reject process definitions that may have undefined > semantics. Such > > > analysis is necessarily pessimistic and therefore might > in some cases > > > prevent the use of processes that would not, in fact, create > > > situations > > > with undefined semantics, either in specific uses or in any use. > > > > > > To: BPEL4WS takes it as a general principle that compliant > > > implementations MAY choose to perform static analysis to > detect and > > > reject process definitions that may have undefined > semantics. Such > > > analysis MUST be performed optimistically, that is, if a > > > process could > > > potentially execute correctly then the process MUST be > accepted for > > > execution. > > > > > > 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]