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

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

Assaf,
 
The second (parameter) question is not all that obscure despite not having a defined feature for passing parameters to compensations.  Because the key point is simply that parameters can't be used in default behavior.  Thus anything clever we can imagine with combinations of commutative and non-commutative compensations will run into difficulties in being applicable to parameterized compensation, which I believe to be a far stronger requirement.  
 
My third question was simply pointing out that once we go beyond the dichotomy of default-reverse and wholly custom ordering, any number of requirements can pop up for ordering which we may not be able to satisfy, so I am hesitant to get on the slippery slope of accumulating that class of requirements without a good idea of potential clean solutions.
 
Satish

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
	Sent: Wed 6/4/2003 8:24 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:
	
	>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.