Re: [wsbpel] Issue 49 - Disambiguating <receive>s to <reply> to

1) if the status response is somehow tied to the contents of the request
message (status of x vs. status of y) then there's a problem.

2) the same issue can be a problem in processes where the request/reply
isn't simply a request for status.

danny

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dieter Roller" <>
To: "Danny van der Rijn" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 49 - Disambiguating <receive>s to <reply> to


>
> 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: 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>
>