[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
I would like to mention some pre-conditions in order to make this proposal enforceable. The proposal changes static analysis from "pessimistic" to "optimistic". I tend to think those terms are enforceable only when the spec have a clear list of static analysis semantics, which has two output choices - error or warning. The list defineds what checking logic will issue error ... (e.g. spelling mistake in variable name in receive) what checking logic will issue warnings only (e.g. assign is trying to assign a string value to a number variable) (that is the optimistic part). If the list of static analysis mentioned by the spec are for fatal error only, then the "optimistic" term may not be that enforceable. This proposal may become guidelines instead of rules. Anyhow, I agree that we should visit the terms "pessimistic" vs "optimistic" in that paragraph. Regards, Alex Yiu John Evdemon wrote: >++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. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >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. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]