[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Dead Path Elimination and Join Conditions
The contradiction is one of semantics. There can be no "dead paths" in
such a case, since a join condition later in the path can "resuscitate"
The sentinel case you describe can easily be coded differently, say as the 2nd activity in a sequence, where the first is a flow. After the flow completes, the sentinel can check conditions. Of course, it can't check link status, but I don't see that as a huge obstacle.
Hello Danny:This is in contradiction with my understanding of dead-path elimination. I would prefer to disallow joinConditions whose expression does not require a true input in order that the join condition evaluate to true. Comments?I do not see how your example contradicts sections 12.5.1 (link semantics) or 12.5.2 (dead path elimination)? I think your example is strange but not pathological. Let us pretend the programmer does not like fault handlers and structured the process as a graph with one end activity: Third. In turn, the programmer wants activity "Third" to be a sentinel or assert of sorts, executing only if activity "Second" failed. If my understanding is correct, if "Second" executes and sets "secondToThird"'s transitionCode to true, Third's joinCondition will evaluate to false, not run, and the process is finished: after all nothing bad happened .... and this is what the programmer intended. Cheers, Andrew