Re: [wsbpel] fault handling

[Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>]

Satish,

I understand the current exception processing semantic but for my own 
edification (and probably the list's), I would appreciate your 
explanation on the rational behind the decision to have faults always 
cause scopes to fail.

I am used to the model where you can handle a fault and decide whether 
or not the fault is propagated to a higher-level context.

Example (in Java):

try {
     // normal processing
} catch ( Exception fault ) {
     // decide to continue or propagate fault
     if ( condition ) {
         // handle exception
     } else {
        throw fault;
     }
}

regards,
alex

Satish Thatte wrote:
> Could you be a bit more specific (about exceptions not camels)?  Which
> aspects of exception processing would you like clarification on?
> 
> One especially troublesome area I am aware of is the stipulation that a
> fault in a scope always dooms the scope to unsuccessful completion.  A
> lot of people (including a bunch of the authors at various points) have
> tried to make fault handlers act as "alternative completion paths" but
> this has always caused far more problems than it solved.  If that's the
> sort of thing you mean, I can take a shot at giving my version of the
> explanation for the current design.
> 
> Satish
>