RE: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May 28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Let us keep concurrency and looping separate for the moment.
 
The mixing of <compensate scope> and <compensate> simply precludes mixing of default and custom invocation of the compensation behavior, so that seems not relevant.
 
Am I missing something?

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
	Sent: Tue 6/3/2003 9:32 PM 
	To: Satish Thatte 
	Cc: edwink@collaxa.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org 
	Subject: Re: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May 28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)
	
	

	Satish Thatte wrote:
	
	>I agree that humans make the need for concurrency more apparent.  The
	>concurrency issue in any case only applies to default behavior since
	>explicit invocation of compensation can be as concurrent as one likes.
	>For default compensation the only concern about ordering is side effects
	>on shared data external to the process since default compensation cannot
	>use parameters for obvious reasons.  I need to think more about the
	>reliability aspect.
	>
	>Satish
	>
	> 
	>
	Explicit invocation of compensation can indeed invoke compensation in
	parallel for scopes with different names. But it cannot invoke
	compensation in parallel for multiple scopes with the same name. In
	addition, the specification currently precludes the mixing of
	<compensate scope/> and <compensate> in the same compensation or fault
	handler. As a result, you either have to know the order for those
	compensations that depend on it, or resort to reverse order for all scopes.
	
	arkin