OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 144 - Defining Undefined Behaviors




Actually, most of the "undefined" behavior are defined but their definition are deferred to the executable extension chapters due to the style of this spec (separating the spec into 3 parts: core, abstract-BPEL extension, executable-BPEL extension). (I got to say that is hard for people to read and connect them together)

The example you mentioned in section  6.5. Its executable behavior is defined in section 14.4 with the missingReply standard fault semantics.

I guess we need to at least but pointers from those "undefined" behavior to the executable section with a section number and a fault name.

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu


ws-bpel issues list editor wrote:

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 144 - Defining Undefined Behaviors

Status: open
Categories: Specification editing
Date added: 15 Jul 2004
Submitter: Yaron Y. Goland
Date submitted: 15 July 2004
Description: Generally it's a bad idea to have undefined behaviors in a language. It leads to gray spots where programmers, often without realizing it, end up relying on a particular implementations handling of 'undefined' and so unwittingly create non-portable code. While it is true that there will be situations where we will have to leave things undefined we should work hard to make those the exception.

For example, Section 6.5 of the spec states "A receive activity for an inbound request/response operation is said to be open if that activity has been performed and no corresponding reply activity has been performed. If the process instance reaches the end of its behavior, and one or more receive activities remain open, then the status of the instance becomes undefined."

Should this be undefined or should a fault be required to be thrown followed by the process exiting? The actual solution isn't as important as providing a well defined behavior.
Submitter's proposal: Put together a table of all undefined behaviors and then review them to decide if they should be changed. It would be useful to put the table into the spec as an appendix in order to help programmers and implementers know exactly which behaviors are undefined.
Changes: 15 Jul 2004 - new issue


To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 144 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution, please start the subject line "Issue - 144 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).

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_workgroup.php.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]