OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote


Maciej, 

I think I now understand. The actual processing of the createInstance='yes' message can occur anywhere in the BPEL process. It could be the first <activity>. Or you could potentially execute your complete BPEL process before you ever get to processing the createInstance='yes' receive. 

So you could even define a valid process that executes successfully but never reaches the <receive> to consume/dequeue this message. The "elephant" will have to cleanup these "partially-processed" messages from the queue when the process instance completes. 

I think this feature does allow creation of some new kinds of flow semantics. And if this is the semantics that gets approved then it should be explained more explicitly. Because intuitively (at least for me) the readers will link createInstance='yes' receive activity as something that should only occur at the beginning of a process. 

At this time we do not have a need for this feature. But using this semantics makes the validation and execution simpler. 

regards,
-Vinky
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:50 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote


Satish,
In the process, "r2" is the createInstance activity. r2 expects an
invocation on operation "z". "invoke bpel.z()" in this trace represents
the partner making just such an invocation on the BPEL process. 

I'm not sure what you mean by private invocation: this is a normal
"partner invokes BPEL process" scenario.

As for i1 "occurring" before "r2", this was the point of the exercise: 
the /message/ msg#1 from our partner (when our partner does "invoke
bpel.z()") /occurs/ (is sent) before any activities are /activated/
(i.e. "invoke bpel.z()" / msg#1 /occurs/ before "i1"). This is because
there is no process instance to speak of until after msg#1 is sent!
However, the message (msg#1) is only /consumed/ when "r2" is /activated/
and "r2" is /activated/ after "i1" is /activated/. This is because
activation is determined by the structure of the process and our process
states that "i1" precedes "r2" in the <sequence>. 

The summary of the time-line (some steps are omitted):
1) Partner wants to invoke z() on the BPEL process, sends msg#1
2) The "elephant" gets the msg#1 from partner
3) A new BPEL process instance is created because the "elephant" knows
that a message on z() is used to create new instances (elephant analyzed
the BPEL process definition).
4) i1 is activated ("literal" is sent to partner and msg#3" is received
as the response)
5) r2 is activated (finally /consuming/ msg#1)

I hope that is clear enough. The other way of looking at this is in
terms of communication queues joining the two partners. Process instance
creation can be thought of as being triggered by an /enqueue/ operation
while <receive>s perform a /dequeue/ operation:
1) partner: plink1.tobpel.enqueue(msg#1)
2) BPEL: new instance is created (triggered by (1))
3) BPEL: i1 is activated...
   BPEL: plink1.topartner.enqueue(literal)
   partner: plink1.topartner.dequeue(): literal
   partner: plink1.tobpel.enqueue(msg#3)
   BPEL: plink1.tobpel.dequeue(): msg#3
4) BPEL: r2 is activated
   BPEL: plink1.tobpel.dequeue(): msg#1

Hope that makes sense: I'm running out of ways of phrasing it.
-maciej


On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 15:58, Satish Thatte wrote:
> I am confused by invoke bpel.z() -- is this some private activation
> notion?  How did you get a trace in which i1 occurred before the message
> for r2 was processed?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:46 PM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote
> 
> Satish,
> 
> I'm not exactly what you mean by protocol paradox, but I'll give it a
> go. The case you alluded to, with one partner and the following process:
> 
> <sequence name="s1" >
> <assign tovar="k"> litral </>
> 
> <invoke name="i1" plink="plink1" op="x" inVar="k" outVar="a" >
>   <correlation cset="foo" initiate="yes" pattern="in"/>
> </invoke>
> 
> <receive name="r1" plink="plink1" op="y" inVar="b">
>   <correlation cset="foo" initiate="no" />
> </receive>
> 
> <receive name="r2" var="c" plink="plink1" op="z" createinstance="yes">
>    <correlation initiate="yes" cset="bar" />
> </receive>
> 
> </sequence>
> 
> would exhibit the following trace:
> 
> PARTNER                      BPEL PROCESS
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  Conversation#1
> /
> .
> .
> .
> |
> > invoke bpel.z()
> | -------------msg#1--------> * new process 
> |                           > seq s1
> |                           > assign
> |   Conversation#2          |  k=literal 
> |  /                        < assign
> |                           > invoke "i1" 
> |  *  <------literal------- |
> |  |                        |
> |  | ----------msg#3------> |
> |  |                        |  a := msg#3
> |  |                        |  foo := {msg#3}
> |  |                        < invoke "i1"
> |  |                        |
> |  |                        > receive "r1" 
> |  > invoke bpel.y()        |
> |  | ----------msg#4------> |
> |  |                        |  b :=  msg#4
> |  < invoke bpel.y()        < receive "r1"
> |  |                        > receive "r2" (** CREATE INSTANCE **)
> |  |                        |  
> |  |                        |  c := msg#1
> |  |                        |  bar := {msg#1}
> |  .                        < receive "r2"
> |  .                        < sequence s1
> |                           |
> .                           .
> .                           .
> .                           .
> 
> So even with only one partner you must have two unrelated conversations
> This is because the correlation set "bar" is not initialized with the
> key from msg#1 until the last step in the sequence. The partner has no
> way of associating the literal it receives from the BPEL with the
> bpel.z() call it made previously (short of making an inference based on
> timing). Because there is no way to relate the two conversations they
> cannot be considered to be part of the same "protocol".
> 
> The one way I see of getting a "protocol paradox" in this environment is
> if "r2" had a non-initiate correlation on "foo", like so: 
> <receive name="r2" var="c" plink="plink1" op="z" createinstance="yes">
>    <correlation initiate="yes" cset="bar" />
>    <correlation initiate="no" cset="foo" />
> </receive>
> 
> With the above, the instantiating message allocated to r2 would have
> been allocated before the value of "foo" could be determined, most
> likely rendering the correlation constraint unsatisfiable (unless by
> some miracle the instantiating message happened to also match the value
> of "foo"). However, createInstance receives cannot have non-initiating
> correlations, so this paradox does not come up.
> 
> Does that make sense? 
> 
> -maciej
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 12:22, Satish Thatte wrote:
> > I am afraid we set ourselves up for some "protocol paradoxes" by
> > eliminating these so-called irrelevant language.  Thus my question in
> > the parallel mail.  It would be interesting to actually show a partner
> > process that successfully communicated with that hypothetical
> strangely
> > instantiated process. 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:19 AM
> > To: Francisco Curbera
> > Cc: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote
> > 
> > Well that is one (not very flattering) way of putting it.  I don't see
> > this as a feature and have no interest in it as a feature. To me this
> > falls under the category of "exceptional language made irrelevant".
> I'd
> > argue that in general there is merit in keeping a spec streamlined and
> > consistent. The gist of 168 is that by properly specifying the
> > instantiation semantics we improve the consistency of the spec which
> > enables us to remove this particular exceptional language. So unless
> one
> > of our goals is a spec with lots of ifs and buts, I fail to see the
> > merit of keeping it.
> > 
> > -maciej
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 11:14, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So is the rationale that because the new feature is really not
> useful 
> > > in any case it should be allowed?
> > > 
> > > Paco
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > >                       Maciej Szefler
> > 
> > >                       <mbs@fivesight.co        To:       Satish
> Thatte
> > <satisht@microsoft.com>                                          
> > >                       m>                       cc:
> > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 
> > >                                                Subject:  RE:
> [wsbpel]
> > Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote                                    
> > >                       10/27/2004 09:59
> > 
> > >                       AM
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Satish,
> > > 
> > > The strikes in 6.4 and 11.4 are there because they the prohibition 
> > > they spell out is not necessary. From the point of view of a process
> 
> > > designer, implicit data-dependency constraints make these explicit 
> > > constraints largely superfluous: it is hard to conceive a process
> that
> > 
> > > could do anything meaningful (besides initializing a variable with a
> 
> > > literal value) before the instantiating message is received.
> > > 
> > > Also, leaving those restrictions there suggests that there is some 
> > > special ordering to or handling of the createInstance activities
> once 
> > > the new process instance is created. I specifically didn't want 
> > > readers to fall under that impression.
> > > 
> > > Finally, there is nothing in the instantiation semantics I'm 
> > > suggesting that makes these constraints technically necessary or 
> > > desirable (from an implementor's point of view).
> > > 
> > > -maciej
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 00:03, Satish Thatte wrote:
> > > > Maciej,
> > > >
> > > > I understand your correction to 13.5.3.  I am not seeing what you 
> > > > are trying to accomplish with the "strike"s in 6.4 and 11.4.
> Please
> > 
> > > > help me out with a hint!
> > > >
> > > > Satish
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ____________________________________________________________________
> > > > __
> > > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:48 AM
> > > > To: Danny van der Rijn; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the instantiating receive is preceded, for instance, by an
> invoke
> > 
> > > > using the same correlation set, I need to know how to handle the 
> > > > correlation set matching for the invoke.
> > > >
> > > > Ugo
> > > >         -----Original Message-----
> > > >         From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
> > > >         Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:36 AM
> > > >         To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >         Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         why does that matter?  the elephant in the room that we
> call
> > > >         the "dispatcher"  has to deal with this stuff, but as far
> as
> > > >         the process is concerned, it shouldn't care, should it?
> we
> > > >         have avoided talking about the dispatcher at all, and i
> > would
> > > >         think that this question falls into that domain.
> > > >
> > > >         danny
> > > >
> > > >         Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > >         > Maciej,
> > > >         > Thank you for the rewrite.
> > > >         >
> > > >         > I think you should also spell out what happens with
> > respect to
> > > >         > correlation set initialization. In other words, is it
> done
> > 
> > > > at
> > > the time
> > > >         > the new process is created, or at the time the normal 
> > > > execution
> > > flow
> > > >         > reaches the instantiating activity?
> > > >         >
> > > >         > Ugo
> > > >         >
> > > >         >
> > > >         > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >         > > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > > >         > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:56 AM
> > > >         > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > >         > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >         > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To Vote
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > Ugo,
> > > >         > > Sorry for the confusion, I've adjusted my proposal
> > (basically
> > > >         > > in my previous narrative "createInstance=rendezvous"
> > should
> > > >         > > be read as "createInstance=yes and containing
> > > >         > > initiate=rendezvous correlation set"). Adjusted text:
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > I propose we adopt the "less magic" approach described
> > in the
> > > >         > > issue description. This means that the semantics of
> > process
> > > >         > > instantiation would be as follows:  1. The arrival of
> > message
> > > >         > > that matches an activity marked with
> createInstance=yes
> > (and
> > > >         > > not matching an existing process
> > > >         > > instance) causes a new process instance to be created.
> > This
> > > >         > > message is termed the "instantiating message" for that
> > > >         > > process instance. The createInstance=yes activity that
> > was
> > > >         > > used to justify the instantiation is termed the
> > > >         > > "instantiating activity" for that process instance.
> > > >         > >  2. Once a process instance is created, all its
> > activities
> > > >         > > are executed in the order dictated by the structure of
> 
> > > > the
> > > process.
> > > >         > >  3. When a <receive> or <pick> activity with
> > > >         > > createInstance=yes containing a initiate=yes
> correlation
> > is
> > > >         > > executed, the message "received" will be the
> > "instantiating
> > > >         > > message" of the process instance.  4. When a <receive>
> > and
> > > >         > > <pick> activity  with createInstance=yes containing a
> > > >         > > initiate=rendezvous correlation is executed, the
> message
> > > >         > > "received" will be either:
> > > >         > >     a ) the "instantiating message" if said activity
> is
> > the
> > > >         > > "instantiating activity"
> > > >         > >     b ) some other message matching the correlation
> key
> > from
> > > >         > > the "instantiating message" if said activity is not
> the
> > > >         > > "instantiating activity"
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > Key changes to text:
> > > >         > > 6.4:
> > > >         > > OLD: This is done by setting the createInstance
> > attribute of
> > > >         > > such an activity to "yes". When a message is received
> by
> > such
> > > >         > > an activity, an instance of the business process is
> > created
> > > >         > > if it does not already exist (see Providing Web
> Service
> > > >         > > Operations and Pick).
> > > >         > > NEW: This is done by setting the createInstance
> > attribute of
> > > >         > > such an activity to "yes". When a message that matches
> > such
> > > >         > > an activity is received, an instance of the business
> > process
> > > >         > > is created if it does not already exist (see Providing
> > Web
> > > >         > > Service Operations and Pick).
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > OLD: To be instantiated, each business process must
> > contain
> > > >         > > at least one such "start activity." This must be an
> > initial
> > > >         > > activity in the sense that there is no basic activity
> > that
> > > >         > > logically precedes it in the behavior of the process.
> > > >         > > NEW: To be instantiated, each business process must
> > contain
> > > >         > > at least one such "start activity." ----strike---
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > 11.4:
> > > >         > > OLD: A receive activity annotated in this way MUST be
> an
> > > >         > > initial activity in the process, that is, the only
> other
> > > >         > > basic activities may potentially be performed prior to
> > or
> > > >         > > simultaneously with such a receive activity MUST be
> > similarly
> > > >         > > annotated receive activities.
> > > >         > > NEW: -----strike----
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > 13.5.3:
> > > >         > > OLD: If the event handler is associated with the
> global
> > > >         > > process scope, the event handler is enabled as soon as
> > the
> > > >         > > process instance is created. The process instance is
> > created
> > > >         > > when the first receive activity that provides for the
> > > >         > > creation of a process instance (indicated via the
> > > >         > > createInstance attribute set to "yes") has received
> and
> > > >         > > processed the corresponding message. This allows the
> > alarm
> > > >         > > time for a global alarm event to be specified using
> the
> > data
> > > >         > > provided within the message that creates a process
> > instance,
> > > >         > > as shown in the following example:
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > NEW: If the event handler is associated with the
> global
> > > >         > > process scope, the event handler is enabled as soon as
> > the
> > > >         > > process instance is created.
> > > >         > > Note: alarm time for a global alarm event /cannot/ be
> > > >         > > specified using the data provided within the message
> > that
> > > >         > > creates a process instance!
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 19:53, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > Maciej,
> > > >         > > > I suggest you rewrite your initial proposal keeping
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > "createInstance"
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > and "initiate" separate. Right now, you are
> conflating
> > 
> > > > the
> > > two (you
> > > >         > > > are, for instance, talking about
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > "createInstance=rendezvous"), which
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > makes the proposed language confusing.
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > > Ugo
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > > P.S. Talking about rendezvous, shouldn't the two
> > initial
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > receive's in
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > the Multiple Start Activities example (sec. 16.3.2)
> > have
> > > >         > > > initiate="rendezvous" instead of initiate="yes"?
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >         > > > > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > > >         > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:08 PM
> > > >         > > > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > >         > > > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >         > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal To
> Vote
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > Ugo,
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > My understanding is that if in a process we find
> an
> > > activity
> > > >         > > > > with createInstance=yes / initiate=yes, then that 
> > > > must be
> > > the
> > > >         > > > > /sole/ createInstance activity in that process.
> > (11.4
> > > >         > > > > suggests that only in the case of rendezvous are
> > multiple
> > > >         > > > > createInstance activities permitted).
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > With createInstance="yes" / initiate="rendezvous"
> we
> > 
> > > > can
> > > have
> > > >         > > > > multiple createInstance activities, but for that 
> > > > case we
> > > have
> > > >         > > > > (rendezvous) semantics (section 11.4 + Issue 37):
> > > >         > > > > 1. all activities will synchronize on the same
> > > correlation
> > > >         > > > > set 2. there will be exactly one "winner" activity
> 
> > > > that
> > > sets
> > > >         > > > > the correlation,
> > > >         > > > > 3. all the other activities will "lose", and
> respect
> > the
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > correlation.
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > How the winner is chosen is out of scope, but we 
> > > > know
> > > exactly
> > > >         > > > > one winner will be chosen.
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > -maciej
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 12:21, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > Maciej,
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > I think the rendezvous issue made
> > > >         > > > > > > such cases technically illegal (i.e. you can 
> > > > only
> > > have one
> > > >         > > > > > > createInstance=yes activity).
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > I am not sure what you are referring to. Could
> you
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > please clarify?
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > Thank you,
> > > >         > > > > > Ugo
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >         > > > > > > From: Maciej Szefler
> [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > > >         > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:16 AM
> > > >         > > > > > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > >         > > > > > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >         > > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal
> To
> > Vote
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > Ugo,
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > You are correct. Although, I think the 
> > > > rendezvous
> > > issue made
> > > >         > > > > > > such cases technically illegal (i.e. you can 
> > > > only
> > > have one
> > > >         > > > > > > createInstance=yes activity). In the case of
> > > >         > > > > > > "createInstance=rendezvous", my first instinct
> > would
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > be to say
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > that processes with this ambiguity are illegal
> 
> > > > and
> > > should be
> > > >         > > > > > > detected by static analysis.
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > -maciej
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 18:49, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > Maciej,
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > What about the case where the "instantiating
> > > message"
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > matches more
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > than one activity marked with
> > createInstance=yes?
> > > Your
> > > >         > > > > > > > proposed
> > > >         > > > > > > > wording does not explicitly rule that out,
> but
> > 
> > > > in
> > > such
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > a case the
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > concept of "instantiating activity" would
> > become
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > ambiguous, in the
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > sense that it would not be clear which one
> of
> > those
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > activities could
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > be labeled that way.
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > Ugo
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >         > > > > > > > > From: Maciej Szefler
> > [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:22 AM
> > > >         > > > > > > > > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 168 - Proposal
> To
> > Vote
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > I propose we adopt the "less magic"
> approach
> > > described in
> > > >         > > > > > > > > the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > issue description. This means that the
> > semantics
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > of process
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > instantiation would be as follows:  1. The
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > arrival of message
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > that matches an activity marked with
> > > >         > > > > > > > > createInstance=yes/rendezvous (and not 
> > > > matching
> > > an
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > existing process
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > instance) causes a new process instance to
> > be
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > created. This
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > message is termed the "instantiating 
> > > > message" for
> > > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > process instance. The
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > createInstance=yes/rendezvous activity
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > that was used to justify the instantiation
> 
> > > > is
> > > termed the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > "instantiating activity" for that process
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > instance.  2. Once
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > a process instance is created, all its 
> > > > activities
> > > are
> > > >         > > > > > > > > executed in the order dictated by the 
> > > > structure
> > > of
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > the process.
> > >  >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > >  3. When a <receive> or <pick> activity
> with
> > > >         > > > > > > > > createInstance=yes is executed, the
> message
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > "received" will
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > be the "instantiating message" of the
> > process
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > instance.  4.
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > When a <receive> and <pick> activity  with
> > > >         > > > > > > > > createInstance=rendezvous is executed, the
> > > message
> > > >         > > > > > > > > "received" will be either:
> > > >         > > > > > > > >     a ) the "instantiating message" if
> said
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > activity is the
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > "instantiating activity"
> > > >         > > > > > > > >     b ) some other message matching the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > correlation key from
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > the "instantiating message" if said
> activity
> > 
> > > > is
> > > not the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > "instantiating activity"
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Key changes to text:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > 6.4:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > OLD: This is done by setting the
> > createInstance
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > attribute of
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > such an activity to "yes". When a message
> is
> > > received by
> > > >         > > > > > > > > such an activity, an instance of the 
> > > > business
> > > process is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > created if it does not already exist (see
> > > Providing Web
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Service Operations and Pick).
> > > >         > > > > > > > > NEW: This is done by setting the
> > createInstance
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > attribute of
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > such an activity to "yes". When a message
> > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > matches such
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > an activity is received, an instance of
> the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > business process
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > is created if it does not already exist
> (see
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > Providing Web
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Service Operations and Pick).
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > OLD: To be instantiated, each business 
> > > > process
> > > must
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > contain at
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > least one such "start activity." This must
> 
> > > > be an
> > > initial
> > > >         > > > > > > > > activity in the sense that there is no
> basic
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > activity that
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > logically precedes it in the behavior of
> the
> > > process.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > NEW: To be instantiated, each business
> > process
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > must contain
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > at least one such "start activity."
> > ----strike---
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > 11.4:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > OLD: A receive activity annotated in this 
> > > > way
> > > MUST be
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > an initial
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > activity in the process, that is, the only
> 
> > > > other
> > > basic
> > > >         > > > > > > > > activities may potentially be performed 
> > > > prior to
> > > or
> > > >         > > > > > > > > simultaneously with such a receive
> activity
> > MUST
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > be similarly
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > annotated receive activities.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > NEW: -----strike----
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > 13.5.3:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > OLD: If the event handler is associated
> with
> > the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > global process
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > scope, the event handler is enabled as
> soon 
> > > > as
> > > the process
> > > >         > > > > > > > > instance is created. The process instance
> is
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > created when the
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > first receive activity that provides for
> the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > creation of a
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > process instance (indicated via the
> > > createInstance
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > attribute set
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > to "yes") has received and processed the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > corresponding message.
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > This allows the alarm time for a global 
> > > > alarm
> > > event to be
> > > >         > > > > > > > > specified using the data provided within
> the
> > > message that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > creates a process instance, as shown in
> the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > following example:
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > NEW: If the event handler is associated
> with
> > the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > global process
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > scope, the event handler is enabled as
> soon 
> > > > as
> > > the process
> > > >         > > > > > > > > instance is created.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > Note: alarm time for a global alarm event
> > > /cannot/ be
> > > >         > > > > > > > > specified using the data provided within
> the
> > > message that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > creates a process instance!
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 17:14, ws-bpel
> issues 
> > > > list
> > > editor
> > > >         > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > This issue has been added to the wsbpel 
> > > > issue
> > > list with
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > a status
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > "received". The status will be changed
> to
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > "open" if the TC
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > accepts it
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > as identifying a bug in the spec or 
> > > > decides it
> > > should
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > be accepted
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > specially. Otherwise it will be closed 
> > > > without
> > > further
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > consideration
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > (but will be marked as "Revisitable")
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > The issues list is posted as a Technical
> > > Committee
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > document to the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > OASIS WSBPEL TC pages 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
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > - 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. Issue - 
> > > > 168 -
> > > Semantics
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > of instance
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > creation
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Status: received
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Date added: 4 Oct 2004
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Categories: State management
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Date submitted: 30 September 2004
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Submitter: Maciej Szefler
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Description: Discussions of issue 81 :
> Are
> > > start
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > activities that
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > aren't createInstance activities legal?
> 
> > > > have
> > > brought
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > to light a
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > certain deficiency of clarity in the
> > current
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > specification
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > respect to issue of instance creation.
> The
> > > present spec
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > makes various
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > vague and somewhat contradictory 
> > > > statements as
> > > to how
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > createInstance
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > activities should be handled.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > On the one hand, the spec suggests that
> > process
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > creation
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > "implicit"
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > and that the createInstance flag is
> merely
> > 
> > > > an
> > > annotation
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > that defines
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > which message events cause an instance
> to 
> > > > be
> > > created
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > and that once
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > created the process instance processes
> all
> > > activities
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > in the same
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > manner largely oblivious to the value of
> > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > annotation.
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, the spec restricts
> the 
> > > > set
> > > of
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > activities
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > that are
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > "initial" activities, and establishes
> > > exceptional
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > semantics
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > (for process-level event handlers) that
> > could
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > be construed
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > to imply that
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > createInstance activities are actually
> > > activated before
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > any other
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > activities, irrespective of their actual
> > > location in
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > the process.
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > I posit that the former interpretation 
> > > > provides
> > > a
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > concise and
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > manageable view of the instance creation
> > > process. By
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > making
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > the spec
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > consistent with it we can define
> execution
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > semantics of a
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > single process instance without
> reference 
> > > > to
> > > instance
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > creation. We
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > can handle
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > instance creation simply and separately
> by
> > > stipulating
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > a process
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > instance is created when a message event
> > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > would match
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > createInstance activities is received. 
> > > > This
> > > message
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > event is
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > "allocated" to that activity, so that
> when
> > that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > activity
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > actually
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > activated (in the normal course of
> process
> > > instance
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > evaluation) it
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > will receive the said event.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > The major implication of this model on
> > > execution
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > semantics is the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > elimination of the notion of "initiate"
> > > activities.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > This concept
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > becomes unnecessary. One might object on
> 
> > > > the
> > > basis that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > without the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > initiate activity restrictions the
> > following
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > process would be
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > perfectly legal:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >    <sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <invoke .../>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <receive createInstance="yes" .../>
> > >  >         > > > > > > > > >    </sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Such a process certainly seems
> > objectionable.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > However, the
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > details of
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > normal execution semantics would make
> such
> > 
> > > > a
> > > process
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > unlikely. That is
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > to say, the <invoke> would need to use a
> > > message
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > variable (for the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > request), and that variable could not
> have
> > been
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > initialized unless
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > some activity preceded the <invoke>. One
> 
> > > > might
> > > then
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > object with the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > following:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >    <sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <receive createInstance="no" ..
> > > var="foo"/>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <invoke ... inVar="foo"/>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <receive createInstance="yes" ..>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >    </sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > However, in this process the first
> receive
> > is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > invalid unless a
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > correlation set is used. But in order to
> 
> > > > use
> > > the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > correlation set, it
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > first needs to be initialized, and the
> > only way
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > to do that
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > is with an
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > invoke or a receive/pick that precedes
> it,
> > so
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > you're back
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > to needing a
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > <receive> to precede the <invoke>. This 
> > > > receive
> > > would
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > have to have
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > createInstance="yes" lest it run into
> the 
> > > > same
> > > problem.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > But if this
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > receive had createInstance="yes" then
> the
> > same
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > annotation on the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > second <receive> would be invalid.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Now, one might get cleverer still and
> > object
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > based on the
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > following somewhat convoluted process:
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >    <sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <assign>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >         <copy>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >            <to variable="foo"/>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >            <from> literal </from>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >         </copy>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      </assign>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <invoke ... inVar="foo">
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >         <correlation name="cset1"
> > > initiate="yes"
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > pattern="in"/>
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      </invoke>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <receive createInstance="no" ..>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >         <correlation name="cset1"
> > initiate="no"
> > > />
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      </receive>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >      <receive createInstance="yes" ..>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >    </sequence>
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > However the above construct would result
> 
> > > > in ALL
> > > process
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > instances
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > having the same correlation set value,
> > which
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > does not make
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > any sense.
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > But one could still object by changing
> the
> > > pattern to
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > "out" on the
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > invoke, and asserting that the partner
> > > generates
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > unique output
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > messages for each invocation thereby 
> > > > yielding
> > > unique
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > correlation keys.
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > But even this very brink of the edge
> case
> > > forces us to
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > change nothing
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > in the semantics. The only significant
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > implication is that
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > in certain
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > unlikely circumstances, the
> implementation
> > > might have to
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > handle <invoke>s and non-createInstance
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > <receive> before it
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > has a
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > chance to
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > offload the createInstance message to
> the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > createInstance <receive>
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > (i.e. it needs to provide a "memory" for
> > the
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > message that
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > created the
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > instance). The only plausible use case
> for
> > 
> > > > this
> > > kind of
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > behavior
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > for initialization of static content.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Finally, adopting uniform execution 
> > > > semantics
> > > would
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > lead us to
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > elimination of the exceptional language
> in
> > 
> > > > the
> > > spec that
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > requires that
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > process-level alarm handlers can use
> data 
> > > > that
> > > would
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > normally only be
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > valid after a receive activity
> completes. 
> > > > This
> > > is not so
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > onerous, as
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > it is possible to move a process-level 
> > > > event
> > > handler
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > into a scope
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > following the initial receives.
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Changes: 4 Oct 2004 - new issue
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________________
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > __
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > To comment on this issue (including
> > whether it
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > should be
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > accepted), 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 - 168
> -
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > [anything]" or
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > a reply to
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > such a message. If you want to formally 
> > > > propose
> > > a
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > resolution to an
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > open issue, please start the subject
> line
> > > "Issue - 168
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > - 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).
> > > >         > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > > > Choreology Anti virus scan completed
> > > >         > > > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > 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_wo
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > > > rk
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > > > group.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_wo
> > > >         > >
> > > >         > > > > rk
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > group.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_work
> > > group.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_work
> > > group.php
> > >  .
> > > 
> > > 
> > > #### signature.asc has been removed from this note on October 27,
> 2004
> > 
> > > by Francisco Curbera
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 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]