On 11/22/07, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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")
Yep, and yes you do need to list the links separate from the condition
(which itself is optional).
Assaf
> 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
>
--
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com
