Re: [wsbpel] New Issue 215: Conflicting Receive in Parallel Foreach?

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

I don't believe there is an issue here. The situation described below is 
exactly identical to using a flow with multiple partnerLinks whose EPRs 
are pulled out of a single variable. All the same issues apply and those 
issues are, in my opinion, well specified in the existing spec.

	Thanks,

		Yaron

Tony Fletcher 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 <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> 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 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> - 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 <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html>.   
> 
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     Issue 215: Conflicting Receive in Parallel Foreach?
> 
> *Status:* received
> *Date added:* 4 Jun 2005
> *Categories:* Partner Links 
> <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#category_partner_links>
> *Date submitted:* 03 June 2005
> *Submitter:* Danny van der Rijn <mailto:dannyv@tibco.com>
> *Description:*
> 
> A la Yuzo's issue 208 
> <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue208>, we now 
> have another case that I'm confused about. Consider the following:
> 
> foreach  parallel="yes"
> 	receive partnerlink="foo" operation="bar"
> 
> This will be more likely if, say, I have an "asynchronous" operation with my 
> partners:
> 
> operation request
> operation reply
> 
> I have N partnerlinks, 1 for each of my N partners, on which I send the request 
> operation, but I only need 1 partnerlink to receive "reply" on.
> 
> So the loop would really look like:
> 
> foreach parallel="yes"
> 	scope
> 		partnerlink name="foo"
> 		assign from="$partnerEPRArray[$foreachIndex]" to="foo"
> 		invoke parterlink="foo"
> 		receive partnerlink="me"
> 
> or something like that. But the part that comes into conflict is the simplified 
> pseudo-code snippet above.
> 
> Q1: Wouldn't that cause a conflicting receive fault?
> Q2: If not, why not?
> Q3: If so, do we solve this?
> Q4: If not, do we put text in the spec explaining the problem, and why we don't 
> fix it?
> *Changes:* 4 Jun 2005 - new issue
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> //
> 
> 
>       
> 
>  Best Regards,
> 
> Tony/                           /
> 
> / <http://www.choreology.com/>/
> 
> 	
> 
> Tony Fletcher
> 
> Technical Advisor
> Choreology Ltd.
> 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
> 
> Phone: 
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 1473 729537
> 
> Mobile:
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 7801 948219//
> 
> Fax:   
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 870 7390077
> 
> Web:
> 
> 	
> 
> /www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>/
> 
> Cohesions™
> 
> Business transaction management software for application coordination
> 
> Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
> 
> Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org>
> 
>