On 21/11/2007, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/21/07, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > o Links: Great idea. Shouldn't the join method support more than one
> > link? I'd just drop the "link" parameter and would allow accessing
> > links directly in the expression language (like in BPEL). Then its
> > possible to synchronize more than one blocks. Or did I get something
> > wrong?
>
> It should have the same binary expressions you can use to join against
> multiple links, that's just an omission in the write up.
Ok, so is then the signature similar to this (pseudocode)?
join( {link1, link2, link3}, "$link1 and $link2")
Explicitly stating all the links is important to ensure that the join
must synchronize all 3 links even the actual status of link3 is not
important (but must be known).
Cheers,
Tammo
--
Tammo van Lessen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.taval.de
