[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [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�nig Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426 Sch�naicher Strasse 220
Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890 71032 B�blingen
Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464 Germany
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]