Re: [ebxml-bp] Manual Operations in BPSS"

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

I believe this will be resolved in V3.0 - assuming we look more
closely at the BCM linking and switching mechanism at that
point - and related use cases and requirements.

Right now we have the notion of actions and steps - and these
progress accordingly with the guard conditions, and success/
failure to a logical result(s).

As discussed on todays call - the notion of "compensation", aka
recovery - is something that is not a major issue for BPSS,
in the way it is in BPEL.  That's not to say you may want to
signal "abort process" and have some clean-up occur - but
the side effects and so on are constrained by the BPSS
binary model itself.

Anyway - my thought is that we have enough refinements
going into V2.0 to provide remediation and improvements
to BPSS - a more wholesale set of mechanisms and
capabilities is more appropriately done under the V3.0
effort.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
Cc: <martin.me.roberts@bt.com>; <dnickull@adobe.com>; <david@drrw.info>;
<zbarch@rcn.com>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Manual Operations in BPSS"


>
> >Fletcher: Dear Martin Duane and others,
> >
> >
> mm1: Forgive my delayed response.
>
> >....To synchronise state one must not only set the communicating protocol
> >machines to complementary states (which is what we tend to concentrate
on),
> >but also align the shared resources (or objects).
> >
> >And yes I picked up on this from a number of folks including Bob Haugen,
it
> >is my understanding that it is indeed the central idea of the COOL
> >architecture, but it actually goes back to CMIP as Martin mentions, and
> >probably way before that too.  In spite of the COOL presentation I am not
> >sure that the ideas have been properly worked into the UN/CEFACT
documents
> >yet though(?)
> >
> >
> mm1: Yes to your first and second points here. On these points, several
> of us recognize there is a difference between process and object state,
> and the object or entity may change state several times when the process
> may not be affected. And, vice versa. Some of this has to do with what
> state is exposed and available in a shared collaboration environment.
>
> >But the alignment of protocol state and resource / object state certainly
> >should be part of BPSS as it goes forward (in my opinion).
> >
> >
> mm1: Yes, again. See above.
>
> On Martin's previous point on providing an indication of what state the
> process instance is actually in, perhaps we should further discuss this
> point to see if a work item is warranted. I encourage others comments.
>
> Reference:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00197.html
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00211.html
>
> Thanks.
> Thanks.
>
>
>