Re: [wsbpel] New Issue - <toPart>s and Anonymous WSDL VariablesClarification (PR2)

+1 from the Canadian judge and the Oregonian.

> Alex Yiu wrote: Hi Monica,
> +1 to the bug fix and refinement of static analysis.
>
> I would like to suggest some wordsmithing on the new sentence:
> from:
> [add sentence] [add new Static Analysis Requirement] At most one 
> <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a 
> process includes more than one <toPart> for each part in the WSDL 
> message definition, that process MUST be rejected by static 
> analysis.[end sentence]
>
> to:
> [add sentence] [add new Static Analysis Requirement] At most one 
> <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a 
> process _makes use of a <toParts> element, which_ includes more than 
> one <toPart> for _a particular_ part in the WSDL message definition, 
> that process MUST be rejected by static analysis.[end sentence]
>
> Does it sound good?
> Thanks!