W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:18:48 -0700
Message-ID: <3ECD2298.2080609@intalio.com>
To: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
CC: public-ws-chor@w3.org

Ricky Ho wrote:

> Assaf,
>
> Can you confirm my understanding from your previous message ?
>
> When a caller invoke a service (which is implemented in BPEL using 
> <receive>) and pass-in a transaction context.  The caller will receive 
> a SOAP fault if any of the following happens ....
> a) The <receive> is NOT defined within a <scope> 

Every <receive> is defined within some scope (process = scope) ;-)

> b) The <receive> is NOT the first activity of that <scope> AND some 
> "different" context has already been established.  (e.g.  There is an 
> <invoke> preceding this <receive>, or there is another <receive> 
> preceding this <receive>) 

This is where the specification becomes ambiguous and could result in 
potential interoperability issues. There are multiple interpretations 
that may not all work well with each other.

My interpretation:

- When you get a message associated with some context you try to find a 
process that can handle it that is visible in that context. If you have 
some receive activity that is registered in some other context than it's 
not visible to you.

- If you have no process that can handle the message and the interaction 
is sychronous, then you need to send back a fault.

- If you have no process that can handle the message and the interaction 
is asyncronous then you let it sit in some queue until it can be delivered.

arkin

>
>
> Best regards,
> Ricky
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 15:55:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT