Re: [wsbpel] wsbpel 3/30/2006: Inconsistency on <completionCondition>

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

> vanderRijn:  aren't those MAY's modifying different things?
>
>> mm1: During the F2F we changed Section 5.2 to read (MAY=>may): "A 
>> <completionCondition> may be used within the <forEach> to allow the 
>> <forEach> activity to complete without executing or finishing all the 
>> branches specified."
>
> vanderRijn: "An author /*may */choose to use <completionCondition>"

mm2: This was a topic of debate at the F2F whether this text was the 
process owner or the processor.

>> mm1: This is then currently inconsistent with similar text in Section 
>> 12.7:  "When the optional <completionCondition> is specified within 
>> the <forEach> construct, the forEach activity MAY be completed 
>> without executing or finishing all the branches specified."
>
> vanderRijn: "If an author so chooses, an engine /*may */choose to 
> complete the activity"
>
>> mm1: To be consistent with the F2F actions, I suggest we revise 
>> Section 12.7 accordingly. If true, I can open an action item.  I'd 
>> look to the creators of the resolution to #6.2 on  this is editorial 
>> or is inconsistent with the  issue  and proposal. 
>
mm2: If we feel these address the process owner and the processor in 
different sections, we should ensure the text makes this distinction. 
This distinction was consistently discussed in the F2F in other reviewed 
language.  You missed the first day so you weren't privy to this 
particular debate. I am fine either way as long as we are consistent 
which case we mean (and articulate). Should I open an action item? Thanks.