[wsbpel] Issue - 287 - Proposal for Vote

As discussed in the previous append (
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200606/msg00022.html), there is
a range of options for activity name uniqueness.

With this mail, I am resending the submitter's proposal (option #4 in the
previous mail):

In section 10.1., replace

   "The name of a named activity MUST be unique amongst all named
   activities present within the same immediately enclosing scope. This
   requirement MUST be statically enforced."

by

   "See section 12.4.3. for uniqueness constraints of the name attribute."

In section 12.4.3., add to the end of

   "For the purpose of specifying the semantics of <compensate> and
   <compensateScope>, a scope, A is considered to immediately enclose
   another scope, B, if B is enclosed in A and B is not enclosed in any
   other scope or FCT-handler that is itself enclosed in the outer scope A.
   Other structured activities (e.g. <sequence> or <forEach>) and event
   handlers enclosed in A do not affect the concept of immediate enclosure"

the following text:

   "This definition includes scopes that result from the <invoke> shorthand
   notation for fault handlers and compensation handlers. Within a scope,
   the name of all named immediately enclosed scopes MUST be unique. This
   requirement MUST be statically enforced."

Kind Regards
DK
                                                                       
 Dieter K霵ig                                Mail:          IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
                                                                       
 Senior Technical Staff Member               Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426      Sch霵aicher Strasse 220
                                                                       
 Architect, Business Process Choreographer   Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890      71032 B鐽lingen
                                                                       
 Member, Technical Expert Council            Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464  Germany