[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 263 - proposal for vote
Alex et. al, I propose some amendments to account for the following problems with the current proposal: 1. First of all we agreed in the TC call today not to use CamelCase for "correlationSet" etc. So, we need to fix that. 2. Everywhere else in the spec we call it "initiate" or "initiation" of correlation set. Not "initialization". So, I suggest we change "initialization" to "initiation". 3. The meaning and context for "outbound" and "inbound" as stated in the first paragraph is not clear. "If multiple correlationSet's are used in a message activity then the above consistency (outbound only) and initialization (inbound and outbound) constraints MUST be observed for all correlationSet's used .." I suggest rephrasing. 4. The current proposal took out "with initiate="no"," for inbound case, that was in the original text. 5. The current proposal states "When a message does not match an already initiated correlationSet, it MUST not be delivered to an IMA." It leaves out the case for "uninitiated" correlation set. 6. The current proposal does not state what text in the current spec it is replacing. Here is my amended proposal: -------------------------------------- The bullets above describe the correlation set "Initiation Constraint". If multiple correlation sets are used in an outbound message activity (e.g, <invoke>), both correlation initiation constraint and consistency constraints MUST be observed for all correlation sets used. If multiple correlation sets are used in an inbound message activity (e.g. <receive>) with initiate="no", then the correlation initiation constraint MUST be observed for all correlation sets used. If any one of the correlation sets does not follow the constraints above, the standard fault bpel:correlationViolation MUST be thrown. When multiple correlation sets are used in an inbound message activity (IMA), a message MUST match all correlation sets for that message to be delivered to the activity in the given process instance. When correlation set in a message does not match an already initiated correlation set in the process instance or if it is not initiated, the message MUST not be delivered to an IMA. Therefore, the correlation consistency constraint checking is not applicable for inbound message activities. -------------------------------------- The above text replaces the following sentences in section 9.2 : The sentences (below) that follow the above text currently will be retained: "If an inbound Web service request
message arrives and both (1) no running process instance can be
identified by a
message correlation set mechanism and (2) all inbound message
activities
referencing the Web service operation have the createInstance attribute
set to
"no" are true then this scenario is out of scope of this
specification because there is no process instance that would be able
to handle
it." Prasad Alex Yiu wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]