[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Correlation sets on invoke
Hi Alex, I was thinking specifically of the case of 'response to an invoke'. In that case, routing is not intended. In the other cases, it could be intended though. Alex Yiu wrote: > > +1 to the need of the clarification. > > Basically, the notion of using correlationSet is the validation > mechanism for message-correlation was first mentioned in the 96 issue > related discussion and mainly backed by Satish. We should capture that > consensus on paper by saying something like: > > "correlationSet is used as the validation mechanism for > message-correlation. It can be used in the message routing mechanism, > when WS-BPEL engine do not provide or is configured not to provide an > engine-managed message routing mechansim." > > Danny, do you think this is suitable to piggy back the clarification > to the resolution of Issue 120 and Issue 120.1? > > > Regards, > Alex Yiu > > > Rania Khalaf wrote: > >> Danny van der Rijn wrote: >> >>> IMO they are both there for validation reasons, and if the >>> validation fails, then the last sentence of 14.4 pervails: >>> >> Ah that's where that is(correlationViolation) ! I was a bit surprised >> coz I was reading 10.2 - and that one says 'behavior is undefined' ! >> Forgot about the spec structure. >> >> Yup, I would agree with validation as the only thing that makes >> sense, so we should probably just state in the spec that they are not >> used for routing the response to the correct instance because >> although I've insisted otherwise as the only thing that makes any >> sense - I got pointed to the spec with that >> 'show-me-where-it-says-that'-look and came up blank. >> >>> If one of initiated correlation set does NOT match with the message, >>> the standard fault bpws:correlationViolation MUST be thrown by a >>> compliant implementation. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Rania Khalaf wrote: >>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I was having a discussion with a student today regarding BPEL >>>> correlation sets, and realized that something is ambiguous about them. >>>> >>>> For initiate='yes|rendezvous' on an invoke corrset, it's pretty >>>> clear what the person is doing - but why would anyone want to have >>>> correlationSet='no' ? >>>> >>>> -If I have a correlation set on an invoke, but initiate='no' and >>>> pattern='out': Looking at the spec, one could say it means that >>>> one checks that the value of the field is consistent with the value >>>> of the correlation set and if not nothing happens anyway (behavior >>>> is undefined acc to author's draft). So I guess, this is harmless >>>> at worst. >>>> >>>> -If I have a correlation set on an invoke, with initiate='no' and >>>> pattern='in' does that mean that the response to the invocation is >>>> treated it as if it is coming to a 'receive' and so the correlation >>>> is used for routing ? If so, that is strange and does appear to >>>> have been the intention of the authors - especially since we have a >>>> 'conflicting receive fault' but no 'conflictingInvokeResponse' >>>> fault. ie: The engine matches responses to requests of req/resp >>>> operations (many mechanisms exist. Who cares which one is used). >>>> So, we can tell which instance the response is coming to, without >>>> using correlation. Now again, we could say it's for some business >>>> data validation case (check that the properties are in fact >>>> correct) - but if that fails again the behavior is undefined so who >>>> cares ? >>>> >>>> I was explaining to the student that the latter case is redundant >>>> and not useful for BPEL. Even the first one is strange to me since >>>> I don't see why you would ever want to have correlation on invoke >>>> if you're not either setting it (or using rendezvous or whatever >>>> that thing is called now - where you could have been setting it). I >>>> think the spec should either say something to this effect, >>>> otherwise it is confusing to some people just reading the spec >>>> whether or not, for example, they need to use correlation on a >>>> request-response invoke if their engine does not support something >>>> like WS-Addressing. It is clear that for receive you would need it >>>> - but for invoke the spec doesn't tell you explicitly that you don't. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Rania >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]