Issue 33: proposed change to the specification

Title: Message

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?