I actually missed the createInstance="yes" in the example. I think the
interesting issue is the same example without createInstance="yes" on
the receive. It will then create a situation where a feature
(rendezvous) designed to address non-deterministic order is used in a
situation with very defined order.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:28 AM
To:
Cc: Danny van der Rijn;
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 191 - Receive/createProcess/Rendezvous from
within While loop (New Proposed Issue Announcement)
+1. A createInstance="yes" is not legal inside of <while> (according to
section 6.5), and issue 81 should not change that.
Kind Regards
DK
"Yaron Y. Goland"
<>
To
07.02.2005 20:40 Danny van der Rijn
<>
cc
Please respond to
ygoland
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue 191 -
Receive/createProcess/Rendezvous
from within While loop (New
Proposed Issue Announcement)
This issue has a dependency on issue 81. Issue 81 proposes adding the
following language to section 11.4:
"A receive/pick activity annotated in this way MUST be a "start
activity". A "start activity" is an initial activity that has a
createInstance="yes" attribute defined on it. An initial activity is a
receive/pick activity where no other activities but scope, flow,
sequence and empty activities occur before it in the process's execution
path."
The result of this language is that the receive would be illegal as the
presence of the while activity would mean that the receive is not an
initial activity and therefore cannot be a start activity and therefore
is illegal.
I actually think the example in 191 is already illegal even without 81
because section 6.5 as it currently stands requires that no 'base
activity'/initial activity occur before a start activity. But I agree
that the current language is ambiguous which is why 81 proposed
clarifying matters.
Yaron
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
