Satish,
I do agree that it is unlikely that a process will call itself, but the
specification do allow it, because you do specify the port type in the Invoke.
So you could specify the one that refers to the process itself. In order to
retain that functionality, I did proposed to optionally use the role instead.
But, I will be happy to modify my proposal to just remove the port type form
the Invoke.
AUTOTEXTLIST \s "E-mail Signature" --
Regards,
Mike Marin
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish Thatte
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:01
PM
To:
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 -
portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
I agree with the analysis
and the proposal except that I don’t see the need for the optional role
specification. When would a process need to invoke itself? And in
the rare cases when it does, the binding of the portLinks to create the cycle
could be done externally relative to the process definition, could it not?
Satish
From: ws-bpel issues list
editor [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August
07, 2003 3:41 AM
To:
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 -
portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
This issue has been added to the wsbpel
issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC
pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the
most recent document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list
editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is
announced, is available at this
constant URL.
Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on
Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
Status:
open
Date added: 5 Aug 2003
Submitter: Marin, Mike
Date submitted: 01 August 2003
Description: The Invoke activity
requires a partnerLink and a portType. However the partnerLink refers to a
partnerLinkType, which also includes the portType. Therefore the portType in
the Invoke is redundant.
A partnerLinkType do refer to a maximum of
two portTypes. Assuming that a process does not invokes itself, then the Invoke
refers to the partnerRole, not myRole, so there is only one possible portType,
for that Invoke. In the other hand, if we assume the process can invoke itself,
then it will be better to specify the role in the Invoke activity instead of
the portType, because role has process semantics instead of the portType.
Submitter's Proposal: I propose
that portType on the Invoke activity be removed and instead an optional role be
included instead. When the role is specified, it must correspond to one of the
two roles defined in the partnerLink. If the role is not specified the
partnerRole in the partnerLink should be assumed.
Changes: 5 Aug 2003 - new issue
To comment on this issue, please follow-up
to this announcement on the list (replying to this
message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the
subject line as you send it starts
"Issue - 44 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message.
To add a new issue, see the issues procedures
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
