Re: [wsbpel] Groups - Reversible and Permeable Scopes v2.ppt uploaded

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

For me the primary issue is - should there be such a thing as permeable 
scopes in BPEL? How we express them is a secondary issue.

My current leaning is against the inclusion of permeable scopes as a 
BPEL semantic. In other words, I believe we should mandate that all BPEL 
scopes are impermeable.

The basis for my belief is that I am having trouble imagining the 
typical BPEL programmer being able to successfully deal with the 
difference between permeable and non-permeable scopes and the use cases 
I can imagine for permeable scopes don't appear compelling enough to 
justify the additional complexity. But I am very happy to be educated on 
that last point and so change my mind.

	Thanks,

		Yaron


Satish Thatte wrote:

> Yaron,
> 
> It is not our intention to propose an explicit permeability attribute.
> The last bullet in slide 5 may have misled you. (Im)permeability is
> merely a part of the proposed semantic of reversible scopes.  All
> non-reversible scopes are implicitly permeable.  And it is proposed that
> serializable scopes are always reversible and hence impermeable.  So
> there is exactly one new attribute: reversible.  Process designers will
> have to decide whether a scope is reversible, unless of course they
> actually attach a fault handler or compensation handler to it, in which
> case the decision is made for them.  I also have a preference for making
> reversible="yes" the default.  In that case all processes based on the
> previous specification checkpoints will continue to have the semantics
> they already do.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> Satish
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Groups - Reversible and Permeable Scopes v2.ppt
> uploaded
> 
> Do you believe that the planning capabilities of the average programmer
> are sophisticated enough to be able to distinguish when and where they
> should use permeable versus reversible scopes?
> 
> What use cases would we loose if we were to ban permeable scopes?
> 
> I realize that my own thinking here is primitive and that it is unfair
> to judge a proposal based on a slide deck so please consider my
> questions as attempts to understand what is being proposed rather than
> counter proposals.
> 
>         Thanks,
> 
>                 Yaron
> 
> satisht@microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>  > The document Reversible and Permeable Scopes v2.ppt has been submitted
> by Satish
>  > Thatte (satisht@microsoft.com) to the OASIS Web Services Business
> Process
>  > Execution Language TC document repository.
>  >
>  > Document Description:
>  > A proposal for solving issues 1 and 10, to be discussed at the next
> face to face
>  > meeting in Walldorf.
>  >
>  > Download Document:
>  >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/download.php/5972/Re
> versible%20and%20Permeable%20Scopes%20v2.ppt
>  >
>  >
>  > View Document Details:
>  >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/document.php?documen
> t_id=5972
>  >
>  >
>  > PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
> application
>  > may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and
> paste
>  > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the
>  > OASIS TC), go to
>  >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
> oup.php.
>  >
>