RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] undefined behavior

Title: Message

I've 
put Mark's original three items in a issue 246, which was my interpretation of 
the desired action from the editor's meeting yesterday. Hope I got that right, 
or near right

 

Peter

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Jordan 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: 08 March 2006 14:43
To: 
  Peter Furniss
Cc: 'Mark Ford'; 
  
Subject: [wsbpel-spec-edit] 
  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.