[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 287 - Proposal for Vote
As discussed in the previous append ( http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200606/msg00022.html), there is a range of options for activity name uniqueness. With this mail, I am resending the submitter's proposal (option #4 in the previous mail): In section 10.1., replace "The name of a named activity MUST be unique amongst all named activities present within the same immediately enclosing scope. This requirement MUST be statically enforced." by "See section 12.4.3. for uniqueness constraints of the name attribute." In section 12.4.3., add to the end of "For the purpose of specifying the semantics of <compensate> and <compensateScope>, a scope, A is considered to immediately enclose another scope, B, if B is enclosed in A and B is not enclosed in any other scope or FCT-handler that is itself enclosed in the outer scope A. Other structured activities (e.g. <sequence> or <forEach>) and event handlers enclosed in A do not affect the concept of immediate enclosure" the following text: "This definition includes scopes that result from the <invoke> shorthand notation for fault handlers and compensation handlers. Within a scope, the name of all named immediately enclosed scopes MUST be unique. This requirement MUST be statically enforced." Kind Regards DK Dieter König Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220 Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464 Germany
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]