Issue - 263 - Is CorrelationSet Consistency Violation possible?

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

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 - 263 - Is CorrelationSet Consistency Violation possible?

Status: received
Date added: 14 Apr 2006
Date submitted: 12 April 2006
Submitter: Prasad Yendluri
Description: The specification in section 9.2 states:
> "If multiple correlationSet’s are used in a message activity with initiate="no", then the consistency constraint MUST be observed for all correlationSet’s used. For example, the correlationSet's used in an inbound message activity (e.g. <receive>) must all match a message for that message to be delivered to the activity in the given process instance. If one of the initiated correlationSet’s does not match the message, the standard fault bpel:correlationViolation MUST be thrown."

Given "correlationSet's used in an inbound message activity (e.g. <receive>) must *all* match a message for that message to be delivered to the activity in the given process instance", how is it possible to match up a message with a process instance and throw the "bpel:correlationViolation" exception if "*one* of the correlationSet’s does not match the message" as stated in the last sentence above (excerpt from the from spec).

Minimally this needs some clarification. Off the bat looks to be a contradiction.
Changes: 14 Apr 2006 - 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 - 263 - [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 - 263 - 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).