undefined behavior

My recollection is that when we closed
144 we said that no undefined behaviors had been identified after the restructure
and that any that were found should have issues opened.  However,
if these are trivial, an action item should be ok.  As the first of
their class it might be best to review  them with the TC.  

Mark, if you think action items are
ok, please resend this to the TC list with the note that we will open action
items for the spec editing team unless there is an objection.  (I've
copied the spec editing team - they may want to weigh in beforehand).

Regards, Diane

IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

"Peter Furniss"
<> 

03/08/2006 02:24 AM

To

"'Mark Ford'" <>,
Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc

Subject

RE: new issue

Whoops - I found this in my inbox.
But I seem to remember some message (from Diane ?) leading me to think
there was some doubt about whether it should go in.

 

I'm happy to put it in, and apologise
if I've just been asleep on this. Mark - do you want it submitted as an
issue (and if so, can you give me a title please). Or is it just a candidate
for the action items ?  

 

(Hope to be on the call tomorrow,
but don't expect to be able to update the issue list until later in the
evening, or sometime on Thursday).

 

Peter

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Ford [mailto:] 

Sent: 28 February 2006 15:47

To: 'Peter Furniss'; 'Diane Jordan'

Subject: new issue

In response to closing Issue 144, there are
still a few places in the current working draft that mention undefined
behavior. I'm not sure if these are "issue worthy" or not since
they are pretty straight forward. 

#1 undefined changes to bpws:missingReply

5.5 The Lifecycle of a Business Process

(Paragraph 8) 

A receive activity for an inbound request/response
operation is said to be open if that activity has been performed and no
corresponding reply activity has been performed.  If the process instance
reaches the end of its behavior, and one or more receive activities remain
open, then
the status of the instance becomes undefined. This condition indicates
a modeling error that was not detected by static analysis.

Change to: 

A receive activity for an inbound request/response
operation is said to be open if that activity has been performed and no
corresponding reply activity has been performed.  If the process instance
reaches the end of its behavior, and one or more receive activities remain
open, then
the process
faults with a bpws:missingReply. This condition indicates a modeling
error that was not detected by static analysis.

#2 undefined changes to bpws:selectionFailure

Section 8.3 Expressions

(2nd to last paragraph)

This function extracts global property values
from variables. The first argument names the source variable for the data
and the second is the qualified name (QName) of the global property to
select from that variable (see Variable Properties).
If the referenced property is not
defined or if there does not exist a propertyAlias to associate the property
with the referenced variable then the semantics of the process is undefined.
 

This sentence in bold was introduced with
the acceptance of Issue 145. The line should be changed to the following:

If the referenced property is not defined,
if there does not exist a propertyAlias to associate the property with
the referenced variable or if the given property definition selects a node
set of a size other than one, then the standard fault bpws:selectionFailure
MUST be thrown by a compliant implementation.

#3 undefined changes to bpws:missingRequest

10.4 Providing Web Service Operations

(Paragraph beginning with "The correlation
between a request and the corresponding reply…) 

…For the purposes of this constraint, an
onMessage clause in a pick is equivalent to a receive (see Pick).
Moreover, a reply activity must
always be preceded by a receive activity for the same partner link, portType
and (request/response) operation, such that no reply has been sent for
that receive activity. The semantics of a process in which this constraint
is violated is undefined. 

Strike the last two sentences since the bpws:missingRequest
fault is detailed a few paragraphs later.