Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 162 - Proposal For Vote

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

Just going through (parts of) the spec again, and I found that the wording that ended up in the spec for 162 (13.3, 3rd para from the end):

"All scopes and activities directly nested in a scope MUST be uniquely named."

Is not as clear as in the issues list.  (Note that I can't find this text in any email, only in the issues list).

"The names of all activities directly nested (ie, not within another nested scope) within a scope will be unique."

May I ask the editors to update the spec with the issues list language?  It seems much clearer to me in a way that isn't obvious otherwise.


Dieter Koenig1 wrote:

Issue 162 - Unique Activity Names for Compensate

Proposal: Add text to section 13.3.3 "Invoking a Compensation Handler" to
clarify that activity names used in a compensate activity must be unique
within the scope.

Rationale: Currently, there is no constraint on activity names, i.e. the
activity name (standard attribute) does not have to be unique. As a result,
a compensate activity may become ambigous:
    scope
        compensationHandler
            compensate "A" <-- don't know which one
        scope name="A" <-- first enclosed scope
        scope name="A" <-- second enclosed scope


Kind Regards
DK


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.