Re: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Satish Thatte wrote:

>So you are saying that there are four scopes that complete in non-deterministic order and two of them have commutative compensations and two don't?
>  
>
Exactly.

> 
>And what would be the proposed solution?  Annotating the commutative compensations to say <may be run in whatever order i.e. concurrently>?  How would you invoke them (assuming they have parameters)?  What if the commutative ones must be run concurrently but after the non-commutative ones?   
>
I would prefer to not propose any change to the specification at this 
point, but investigate whether we have an effective solution given the 
current specification or currently planned extensions.

I can't answer the second question since there's no proposal for any 
means to pass parameters to compensation, so I don't know what it would 
entail. But I do think that such a mechanism could be used to solve 
scenarios that require reordering of compensation, while still 
conforming to the current semantics of the compensate activity.

arkin

NB
Just to make sure we are not a slave to the process, if there was an 
issue then I would add it to my issue list and propose it once we have 
an issue resolution process in place. Right now I'm not convienced there 
is an issue to raise.