Resolution of issue 111

["Oliver Kopp" <oliver.kopp@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>]

While reading the spec, we found the resolution of issue 111 was not
realised exactly as it was proposed by use 111.

Issue 111 proposed following syntax:

<extensionActivity standard-attributes>
        standard-elements
     <???? >
      ...
     </????>
</extensionActivity>


In contrast to that syntax, following syntax was realised:

<extensionActivity>
     <???? standard-attributes>
        standard-elements
      ...
     </????>
</extensionActivity>


We think that the first syntax is the right one, since there can only be one
element be nested in an extensionActivity. Furthermore, we think in the
first case, separation of concers is given. The ???? elements contains only
construct, which have to be handled of the processor of ????. In the
realized syntax, ???? contains elements which are to be interpreted by the
BPEL engine and which the processor of ???? should ignore.


We got another issue with the extension activity:
We think there should be a fault for the case of a failure during the
execution of an extension activity. In our oppinion, this would be
consistent with the existence of a subLanguageExecutionFault.


Is it possible to work-in our proposed changes in the upcoming version of
the specification?


Thank you in advance


Oliver Kopp

--
University of Stuttgart
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems (IAAS)
Universitätsstraße 38 - 70569 Stuttgart
+49 711 7816 - 483
http://www.iaas.uni-stuttgart.de