Issue - 9 - RE: [wsbpel] Should a correlationViolation be thrown when initiaing a correlation set with missing property aliases

This 
is a generic problem with the BPEL spec. There are tons of assumptions in the 
spec about problems that are expected to be caught by static analysis and so do 
not have faults defined for them since they can't happen at run time. The 
problem is, the assumptions are assumptions rather than explicit statements. 
What we need is an explicit list of what the assumptions 
are.

 

I 
suspect creating that list will be a natural by-product of dealing with Issue 9 
which is why I changed the title to move this thread over to that 
issue.

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Keller 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 
  07, 2003 3:09 PM
To: 'Eckenfels. Bernd'; 
  
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Should a 
  correlationViolation be thrown when initiaing a correlation set with missing 
  property aliases

  

  
Sound's good, but 
  then we should at least say somewhere in the document that this is an error 
  and that a compliant implementation must check this.  I think this is somewhat different from 
  a bad reference to, as an example, a partner link type, which is more obvious 
  since the name is directly referenced in the BPEL process.  This is an indirect consistency check 
  that we would require of an implementation. 

  
 

  
-----Original 
  Message-----
From: Eckenfels. 
  Bernd [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 
  2003 5:26 
  PM
To: 
  
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Should a 
  correlationViolation be thrown when initiaing a correlation set with missing 
  property aliases

  
 

  

  
Hello,

  

  
 

  

  
some of 
  those incosistencies should be checked on activation of a process, and 
  therefore do not need to be signaled at runtime. If the error can happen 
  because of some XPath expression evaluated to the wrong value this static 
  checking is not possible, then a new exception should be 
  thrown.

  

  
 

  

  
In your 
  case Chris, I think it is possible to check the existence of a propertyAlias 
  referenced from a correlation set definition (there is nothing dynamic about 
  that)

  

  
on 
  import and therefore "cannot happen" on execution. 
  

  

  
 

  

  
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd 
  Eckenfels
Chief 
  Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, 
  Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto: - 
  http://www.seeburger.de 

  
    
-----Original 
    Message-----
From: Chris 
    Keller [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:59 
    PM
To: 
    
Subject: [wsbpel] Should a 
    correlationViolation be thrown when initiaing a correlation set with missing 
    property aliases

    
It is not clear in the current 
    specification what should happen if a property declared in a correlation set 
    does not have a corresponding property alias during initialization.  For example if I have a property 
    called "purchaseOrderNumber" and create a correlation set in my BPEL called 
    "po" which includes this property.  
    If then create a receive which initiates the correlation set "po" and 
    uses a variable called "poVar" that is a associated with a message called 
    "poMessage", but I neglect to create a propertyAlias for "poMessage" to 
    associate it with "purchaseOrderNumber".  My feeling is that this should throw 
    a correlationViolation (or some new fault like unknownPropertyAlias), but I 
    couldn't find it spelled out anywhere. 

    
 

    
Chris