|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:||Frank Leymann (LE...@de.ibm.com)|
|Date:||Jul 5, 2003 8:45:05 am|
Would you please point out where the spec does allow two conflicting interpretations?
The intend of the spec was to allow the same <OnMessage> receiving multiple messages concurrently, in parallel (as soon as the associated scope has been entered. Please see the corresponding quotes from the spec:
"The event handlers associated with a scope are enabled when the associated scope starts . "
"A message event occurs when the appropriate message is received on the specified partner link using the specified port type and operation. When such an event occurs, the corresponding activity is carried out. However, the event remains enabled, even for concurrent use. Thus a particular message event can occur multiple times while the corresponding scope is active."
"All event handlers associated with a scope are disabled when the normal processing of the scope is complete. The already dispatched event handlers are allowed to complete. The completion of the scope as a whole is delayed until all active event handlers have completed."
------------------- Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann, Distinguished Engineer IBM Software Group Member, IBM Academy of Technology
Phone 1: +49-7031-16 39 98 Phone 2: +49-7056-96 50 67 Mobile: +49-172-731 5858
To: <wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 32 - Link Semantics in Event Handlers
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.
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