11 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.wsbpelRe: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semant...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Yuzo Fujishima | Jul 4, 2003 5:58 pm | |
| Dieter Roller | Jul 4, 2003 10:45 pm | |
| Frank Leymann | Jul 5, 2003 8:45 am | |
| Francisco Curbera | Jul 6, 2003 6:16 pm | |
| Yuzo Fujishima | Jul 6, 2003 8:38 pm | |
| Yuzo Fujishima | Jul 6, 2003 10:22 pm | |
| Dieter Roller | Jul 7, 2003 5:47 am | |
| Francisco Curbera | Jul 7, 2003 7:30 am | |
| Assaf Arkin | Jul 7, 2003 3:01 pm | |
| Dieter Roller | Jul 7, 2003 10:27 pm | |
| Yuzo Fujishima | Sep 27, 2003 1:17 am |
| Subject: | Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Dieter Roller (RO...@de.ibm.com) | |
| Date: | Jul 7, 2003 5:47:16 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.wsbpel | |
I'm against any serialization. It introduces a restriction that is not needed and in fact can make things just more complicated. Suppose we have the following definition :
<eventHandlers>
<onMessage>
</onMessage>
<onAlarm>
</onAlarm>
a message has arrived and is processed by the activity in the onMessage event handler and the onAlarm is ready to go off. What would we do : wait with the alarm until the message has been processed ?
I'm confident other people will find other examples where serialization hurts...
Cheers,
dieter
Dieter Roller IBM Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Member IBM Academy of Technology Phone : +49-7031-164476 Fax : +49-7031-164890 e-mail ro...@de.ibm.com
|---------+----------------------------> | | "Yuzo Fujishima" | | | <fuji...@bc.jp.| | | nec.com> | | | | | | 07/07/2003 07:39 | | | AM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: <wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org> | | Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers | | | | | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Paco,
I, too, would vote for serialization for the same reason.
Yuzo
Satish's and Edwin's interpretations match mine, and I've always believed that to be the original intent of all the authors (who should correct me if I am wrong). On the other hand, it is a fair question to ask whether we really need to allow multiple "copies" of an event handler to execute concurrently, as opposed to serializing the handling of each message received by the handler's onMessage activity. I would vote for serialization (of each execution of the same handler) if only because I don't have any scenario in mind that justifies the complexity of full concurrent execution of multiple copies of the same handler.
Paco
"Yuzo Fujishima" <fuji...@bc.jp. To: <wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org> nec.com> cc: Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers 07/04/2003 09:14 PM
Chunbo, Edwin
According to a messge from Satish, http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200305/msg00131.html Edwin's view seems to be closer to the original authors' intention.
The problem is that the specification itself allows at least two interpretations. I raised this issue to clarify which is the right one. After the discussion and the issue/requirementprocess mature, I probably propose a motion to pick one iterpretation.
Yuzo
Chunbo> Hi Yuzo, Chunbo> Chunbo> I think the link status is maintained at process instance level, not based Chunbo> on the thread level. So A and B will be synced as far as they belong to the Chunbo> same process instance. Chunbo> Chunbo> -Chunbo
Edwin> Yuzo, Edwin> Thank you for the example. It seems that in that specific case, each message Edwin> would create a new flow activity. So if you have 4 messages, you end up Edwin> with 4 instances of the flow activity (all running concurrently). Each flow Edwin> activity instance will have its own AtoB link. No? Edwin> Edwin