Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 52 - Proposal For Vote

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

When I began to think about IPC in BPEL I wondered if shared variables 
could solve the problem. But after writing a paper analyzing the problem 
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200308/msg00158.html> I 
came to the conclusion that IPC via shared variables is just too hard to 
get right. I'd appreciate it if you could review that paper and let me 
know what you think.

	Thanks,

		Yaron

Francisco Curbera wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the "self" bit is on the implication must be that the process
> takes on both roles of the partner link. Don't you need to differentiate in
> receives/invokes what "end" of the partner link is being used? That is,
> isn't this (from the process perspective) actually equivalent to two
> partner links (that happen to be the two ends of the same message pipe)?
> 
> I guess resolving this issue involves a judgement call  about what type of
> interactions merit first class support in the language. I am still of the
> opinion that we can deal with this facility via data sharing, on the
> assumption that this behavior is that frequently required.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                         
> 
> 
>                       "Yaron Y. 
> Goland"                                                                                                 
> 
> 
>                       <ygoland@bea.com>        To:       wsbpeltc 
> <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                                        
> 
>                                                
> cc:                                                                                      
> 
> 
>                       09/15/2004 09:05         Subject:  [wsbpel] Issue 
> - 52 - Proposal For Vote                                       
> 
>                       
> PM                                                                                                                
> 
> 
>                       Please respond 
> to                                                                                                 
> 
> 
>                       
> ygoland                                                                                                           
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In section 6.2, 7.2
> Change the partnerLink schema to:
> 
> <partnerLinks>
>        <partnerLink name="ncname" partnerLinkType="qname"
>             myRole="ncname"? partnerRole="ncname"?
>             partnerIsSelf="Boolean"?>+
>        </partnerLink>
> </partnerLinks>
> 
> Add the following text to the end of section 7.2:
> 
> If the partnerIsSelf attribute is set to true then it indicates that the
> partnerRole points to the BPEL process instance in which the partnerLink
> is being used. The default value of the partnerIsSelf attribute is
> false. partnerIsSelf is used to support internal communication so that a
> BPEL process instance can send messages to itself. By specifying
> partnerIsSelf="true" the BPEL engine knows that it is to provide a
> binding for the partnerRole that points at the BPEL process instance.
> 
> Add the following to the schema definition of tPartnerLink:
> <attribute name="partnerIsSelf" type="bpws:tBoolean" use="optional"
> default="no"/>
> 
> 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 
> 
> .
> 
> 
>