Title: Message
Since
I haven't heard anything from the editors, I assume you are all ok with the
proposed changes below. I have checked in to CVS the changes as
below.
I hand
off the pen.
Best Regards,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Kevin
Sent:
Friday, May 07, 2004 02:45 PM
To: 'Prasad Yendluri'; Satish
Thatte
Cc: bpel spec; 'Eckenfels. Bernd'; Trickovic,
Ivana
Subject: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Issue 33: proposed change to the
specification
Hi
all,
Since
the resolution of issue 33 doesn't include concrete proposal of
changes to the spec, the editors have a lot of leeway about where to change
and what to actually say. Here is what I am thinking to implement the
resolution. Please let me know your thoughts. If it looks OK with all
of us, I will check in the changes end of
Monday.
since
the race conditions could occur to more than one activities, I am considering to
add a subsection under "Defining Business Process". The TOC will look
like:
6. Defining a Business Process
6.1. Initial Example
6.2. The Structure of a Business
Process
6.3.
Handling Race Conditions
6.4. Language Extensibility
6.5. The Lifecycle of a Business Process
the
wording will be:
6.3. Handling Race
Conditions
As a caveat, it's worth to point out that run time
race conditions may occur in certain occasions of executing a business process. For example, messages may arrive before
their targeting "receive" activity is instantiated because the
runtime engine is too overloaded to receive fast enough. Process engines may employ different
mechanisms to handle race conditions. This specification doesn't mandate a
particular mechanism, but it assumes
that the engines take care of race conditions in a way that the process behaves
as if no race condition was encountered . For example, in case a message arrives before a "receive"
is activated, the engine may queue the message or store it in some other manners
and make it available to the "receive"
activity as soon as it becomes active, but to the message sender, the message
always appears being processed as if it was received after the "receive"
is activated.
Best Regards,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 02:09
PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Liu, Kevin; bpel
spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial
update
Works for me..
Satish Thatte wrote:
I suggest the
following order. Prasad fixes 101 and 117. Then Kevin fixes
33. Then I fix 25 and 53. How does that
sound?
