Re: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Satish Thatte wrote:

>I don't buy the three days vs one day example - I don't see which
>interfering shared variable access is essential in that example.
>
Sorry for the misunderstanding; I wasn't referring to the example in the 
spec; I was referring to the use of the travel agency example across 
many such process specs. What I meant (but did not spell out explicitly) 
was that suitable patterns of shared variable access could result in 
serialized execution of concurrent scopes. I don't believe static 
analysis of shared variable use can accurately detect this problem, 
though it may be able to warn about potential problems.

>What did you have in mind for the handling of concurrency faults?
>Retry?  Failure?  Some custom code?
>
This is really a specific case of the more general problem of fault 
handling / recovery in BPEL. The language should have decent support for 
this. In this case, I might follow a typical pattern: compensate for the 
activities completed in the failed scope, then retry it. Nothing fancy 
like custom code, as much as I admire Edwin's <exec> tags :-).

Cheers,
-Ron