[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Link semantics and control dependencies
Marlon, I am trying to fathom the link from A1 to A3. Do you mean that A1 is the switch activity and A3 is a nested case within the switch and there is a link from A1 to A3? If so then this is pathological. I realize that we probably don't ban it today explicitly but there is no way to have A3 execute in this case, regardless of the A4 conundrum. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Dumas, Marlon [mailto:marlon.dumas@sap.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:30 AM To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel] Link semantics and control dependencies Hi, I believe that the following two fragments of the spec. contradict each other and I would like to gather second opinions about it: In Section 12.5.1 (Link Semantics) "If, during the performance of structured activity S, the semantics of S dictate that activity X nested within S will not be performed as part of the behavior of S, then the status of all outgoing links from X is set to negative. An example is an activity within a branch that is not taken in a switch activity..." In Section 13.4.2 (Default Compensation Order): "If an activity A must complete before activity B begins, as a result of the existence of a control path from A to B in the process definition, then we say that B has a control dependency on A. Note that control dependencies may occur due to control links in a <flow> as well as due to constructs like <sequence>." To illustrate this contradiction, consider the following example: <flow name="F"> link x1 goes from A1 to A3 link x2 goes from A3 to A4 A1 <switch name="Sw"> case C1: A2 case C2: A3 </switch> A4 [joinCondition = "not x2"] </flow> Let's now consider the following execution: Flow F starts, and thus action A1 and switch "Sw" are executed. Note that at this point A4 is ready to start but does not start because its incoming link x2 has not yet been determined. Let's now assume that condition C1 evaluates to true and thus the corresponding branch is taken which results in activity A2 being executed. According to the first quote from the spec. above, the status of link x2 is then set to negative since branch A3 was not taken. The joinCondition at A4 ("not x2") then evaluates to True, and this results in A4 being executed. Note that at this point in time, A1 has not yet completed. This seems to contradict the second quote above. Indeed, there is a control path from A1 to A4 (i.e. a control link from A1 to A3 and another one from A3 to A4), which means that A4 has a control dependency on A1. Hence A4 cannot start before A1 has completed. Does anybody find any flaws in my reasoning? Thanks marlon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]