RE: [bpel-dev] multiple main activities in a process: bug or not?

["Tishkov, Vitaly V" <vitaly.v.tishkov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michal,

 

I’d also vote for not hiding the HiddenSequence. In spite of the fact that the source tab is being developed, user will see different things in design and source tabs.

Just to clarify your proposal.

 

a) If a placeholder calls for an single activity and you are dropping another activity where one already exists, then wrap it in the sequence but don't make it hidden, that is expose it.
b) If you dropping another activity as the new main activity (the arrow after the start node), then make the new activity the first activity in the sequence if a sequence already exists (don't re-wrap). This would solve the mystery hidden sequence problem that you have stumbled upon.

 

What if there is a sequence and you’re adding one more activity after it, before the end node (in opposite to b) ) then should we wrap it?

I.e. should this one:

            start -> sequence(activity1->..->activityn) -> activity_new ->end

become

            start -> sequence(sequence(activity1->..->activityn)->activity_new) -> end ?

 

Thanks,

            Vitaly.

 

---

From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michal Chmielewski
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:02 PM
To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
Subject: Re: [bpel-dev] multiple main activities in a process: bug or not?

 

Vitaly,

The case(1) below in the BPEL editor is actually handled by a hidden sequence.

If you wipe out a the main activity in the process, then add an assign and another assign after it, you see something like this.



But what the source has is this....

<bpws:sequence name="HiddenSequence">
     <bpws:assign name="Assign" validate="no"/>
     <bpws:assign name="Assign1" validate="no"/>
</bpws:sequence>

Hidden sequence are not displayed currently, which is confusing perhaps.

I would actually vote to implement this a little differently, but sort of in the same way.

a) If a placeholder calls for an single activity and you are dropping another activity where one already exists, then wrap it in the sequence but don't make it hidden, that is expose it.
b) If you dropping another activity as the new main activity (the arrow after the start node), then make the new activity the first activity in the sequence if a sequence already exists (don't re-wrap). This would solve the mystery hidden sequence problem that you have stumbled upon.

In a baseline BPEL 2.0 implementation, I would rather stray away from such UI tricks (like hidden sequences).

-michal


Tishkov, Vitaly V wrote:

Hello there,

 

The p. 5.2 of the BPEL spec (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18714/wsbpel-specification-draft-May17.htm#_Toc135660174) declares that a business process may have only one main activity.

 

I.e. a process like this is incorrect:

            start->assign1->assign2->end                           (1)

But this one is correct:

            start->sequence(assign1->assign2)->end           (2)

 

The current version of BPEL editor allows sequences like (1).

Is it a bug?

 

Thanks,

            Vitaly.

_______________________________________________

bpel-dev mailing list

bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev

-- 

Michal Chmielewski, CMTS, Oracle Corp, 

W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321 

"Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."