Danny,
two answers:
(1) I don't think there is a problem with multiple concurrent status
requests. In this case it is clear to which receive the reply goes.
(2) I'm not sure that I understand your comment with other business cases..
Cheers,
dieter
PS/I will on vacation the next two weeks and therefore will be unable to
respond to your answers....
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Danny van der |
| | Rijn |
| | <|
| | > |
| | |
| | 08/14/2003 09:42 |
| | PM |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Dieter Roller/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 49 - Disambiguating <receive>s to <reply> to |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ah, i see. is the only reason for this that otherwise it would open up
issue 49? i can see lots of uses for this, especially with the event
handlers (how do you guard against multiple concurrent status requests?),
but also business uses.
thanks
danny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dieter Roller" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 49 - Disambiguating <receive>s to <reply> to
> Danny,
>
> this would result in a conflictingRequest exception unless the
correlation
> sets differ ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> dieter
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
