[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [wsbpel] 9/14/2003: Issue 53-59 Feedback on Business Transactions
On initial review, the Business Transaction Management proposal from Choreology has sound technical underpinnings. However, the WS-BPEL TC should discuss whether standard language extensions should be defined in BPEL to accomodate externally coordinated completion. If extensions are defined, this could impact BPEL code portability. This may provide an argument to consider defining the transaction context outside of BPEL (possibly as a context type for business transaction). On this final assumption, minimum pre-requisite is a set of clear definitions/distinctions between business transaction, transaction and relationship to business process. In addition, should the TC consider whether a WSDL binding for business transactions be defined? In general, opening up the scope or process for external coordination, would entail more sophisticated machinery and associated state handling beyond the lifetime of a process instance. The current compensation constructs are not fully specified and do not appear to support this sophistication (as evidenced by the several issues we have logged on compensation). In looking at these two discussion items and the broader behavioral model, business transactions may be more appropriately understood by the global model with a view that is 'available' to the business process orchestration (i.e. BPEL). Whether this becomes a discussion item our liaison with WS-Choreography could be entertained. Notwithstanding the comments above, if externally coordinated completions are to be properly supported, two coverage areas (at a minimum) exist: 1. The semantics of 'enableInstanceCompletion' has to be fully specified. Specifically, how to associate a compensation handler for a process instance, that may be invoked only after the process instance goes away. This applies to processing at the participant site in a coordination hierarchy. 2. The BPEL language extensions to support initiating and completing coordinated actions or virtual scopes that span across process instances. This applies to processing at the root site in a coordination hierarchy. These discussion points span across or touch on several issues including, but not limited to: 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 21, 25, 27 (if condition allowed), and 30. Likely, we will get ample time to discuss these dependencies, opportunities and technical options in the F2F this week. Thanks.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]