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 6 - Rough draft of proposal for vote


I believe that the complexity of the current proposal is well above the 
capabilities of what I expect to be the average BPEL programmer. 
Completion conditions, ignorable faults, new XPATH functions, etc. 
introduces a lot of complexity that I believe that average BPEL 
programmer would not be interested in dealing with.

We know from many decades of language experience that average 
programmers can deal with break/continue. I know from at least our own 
experience at BEA that users can deal with the concept of a flow where a 
break in the flow results in the other members of the flow being 
terminated in the BPEL meaning of the term.

Defining a break activity and specifying that if break is used in the 
context of flow then this means that the flow activity ends and any 
uncompleted members of the flow are terminated would both fit directly 
into BPEL's existing syntax and semantics and I believe be simple enough 
that the average programmer can handle it. I would therefore offer break 
(and it's relative 'continue') as an alternative.

	Thanks,

		Yaron

Alex Yiu wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ivana, thanks for sending out this proposal.
> I believe a number of us (including me) like the <completionConditon> 
> construct from your proposal high level speaking.
> 
> After reading the proposal, I guess we need to work on a number of 
> details. I would like to ask a few questions / mention a few points:
> 
>     * Minor syntax and semantics questions :
>           o Do we want to allow expression for branch attribute? instead
>             of just a constant integer?
>           o We may need to some minor syntax adjustment for expression
>             attribute because we have passed Isseu 13 already.
>           o If answers to the above question are yes, then the condition
>             syntax may become a choice (xsd:choice) of the following two:
>             <condition
>             expressionLanguage="anyURI"?>boolean-expression</condition>
>             <branchCondition
>             expressionLanguage="anyURI"?>integer-expression</condition>
> 
>     * About completionConditionFailure : it looks like a nice idea so
>       far ...
> 
>     * About the new "isCompleted()" function :  I am not against this
>       function. But, I tend to think there are usually BPEL variables
>       being modifed as the execution result of a flow activity. (See the
>       train-or-plane-and-hotel example). Is it more typical to have
>       completionCondition to be evaluated on those variables?
>       Also, after the completion of the whole flow, it is not uncommon
>       for people to have logic to find out which branch is finished
>       (especially when "or" is involved in the condition). The
>       "isComplete()" function would be available only within the
>       completionCondition within the flow. People may get confused and
>       attempt to use the "isComplete()" function outside the flow. If
>       the completionCondition relies on variables, the same logic is
>       applicable outside of the flow.
> 
>     * About the IgnoreFault semantics: I recall this ignoreFault idea
>       back to March F2F. With ignoreFault semantics, it essentially
>       introduces two brand new semantics.
>           o It turns <flow> into a semi-<scope> like construct
>           o It adds this new "ignoreFault" semantics: which catches
>             certain fault and the catching action will not cause any
>             scope to be marked as faulted.
> 
>     I tend to think this "ignoreFault" functionality has quite a heavy
>     weight impact to <flow> and fault handling picture in BPEL. If there
>     is an alternative way to achieve similar business logic, I would go
>     for the alternative way.
> 
>     Quoted from Ivana's email:
>     " Not all activities must complete in order the enclosing flow
>     activity to complete. The way to identify that an enclosed activity
>     did not complete is to propagate faults. "
> 
>     I agree with the first sentence. But, I am not sure that propagating
>     fault is the only way to identify an enclosed activity did not
>     complete. I would rather use a scope as an activity enclosed by
>     flow. If we wish to suppress any minor fault which happens during
>     the execution of the scope, then we can just add a fault handler. If
>     the fault that happen, the scope will be marked as "faulted".
> 
>     The completeConditon can identify the "incomplete" state of the
>     scope by two ways:
> 
>         * completeCondition can be evaluated based on BPEL variables,
>           which are set to "incomplete" state by pre-flow initialization
>           or related fault-handler logic.
>         * branch-based condition will interprete a faulted scope as
>           "incomplete" branch and will not count them into the required
>           N branches.
> 
>     This will allow us to suppress minor fault with or without the
>     <completionCondition> construct. Please see the following example.
>     It is already legal and working today. It shows how to suppress
>     "foo:barFault" without the <completeCondition> construct
> 
>     <flow>
>        <scope name="A">
>           <faultHandler>
>              <catch faultName="foo:barFault" ... > ... </catch>
>           </faultHandler>
>           <sequence>
>              ...  <invoke name="doA" ... /> ...
>           </sequence>
>        </scope>
>        <scope name="B"> ... <!-- similar to A --> ... </scope>  
>     </flow>
> 
>     If the invoke of "doA" triggers "foo:barFault", the scope "A" will
>     be marked as faulted. On the other hand, scope "B" will be allowed
>     to continue and complete. After scope "B" is completed, the
>     compensation handler of scope "B" will be installed. And, the
>     overall execution of flow is still considered a normal completion.
> 
>     I hope I have illustrated we can achieve similar logic without
>     introducing a new "ignoreFault" construct and concept to BPEL.
> 
>     What "completionCondition" does should be just providing a way to
>     pro-actively cancel/terminate other flows without waiting to them to
>     complete or to be faulted.
> 
>     * About "Cancel-other-flows":   (Let me consolidate what I am
>       leaning towards so far.) We need to formal define the notion of a
>       " cancel-other-flows " mechanism. This mechanism is specified and
>       attached to <flow> construct (and future parallel forEach
>       construct).  When this mechanism is triggered by one of parallel
>       flows, it will cancel/terminate other parallel flows which are
>       still running, after the triggering flow is completed. If the
>       other flow activties are scope activities, the scope will be
>       marked as cancelled.
> 
>       This mechanism will be triggered upon the completionCondition is
>       evaluated to be true.
> 
>       [Note: (a) since this mechanism is triggered by without using any
>       fault directly. This will again decrease the need of "ignoreFault"
>       construct (b) This mechanism will affect the wordings of Issue 135
>       to an extent.]
> 
>       [Question: again, should we enforce scope-only activity when
>       completionCondition is used? I tend to say yes.]
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you all for following and reading this email thread!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alex Yiu
>  
> 
> 
> Trickovic, Ivana wrote:
> 
>>  
>>
>> Here is a proposal for the completion condition - it addresses some 
>> issues not tackled so far (at least not in case of 
>> <completeCondition>). It is a version of the proposal for completion 
>> condition for the bundle element. This proposal includes comments from 
>> many people including Frank Leymann, Dieter Koenig, Dieter Roller and 
>> Satish Thatte. It does not mean that they completely support the 
>> proposal - they may have issues with any part of the proposal.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Completion condition
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> The current semantics of the flow activity is that it waits for all 
>> concurrent activities to complete. The completion also means that an 
>> enclosed activity/scope may end abnormally or be skipped (e.g. the 
>> join condition of the activity evaluated to false). If a fault is 
>> thrown within an enclosed activity/scope and one of the local fault 
>> handlers catch the fault (and does not rethrow the fault), the 
>> enclosed activity/scope will be deemed to be completed (although ended 
>> abnormally). If a fault is not caught by any local fault handler (or 
>> is rethrown) the flow activity will terminate all active concurrent 
>> activities and corresponding fault handler may be initiated.
>>
>>  
>>
>> A completion condition for the flow activity is needed for scenarios 
>> where not all concurrent activities of a flow activity must complete 
>> in order the flow activity to complete. Note: We are not talking about 
>> "successful completion" of enclosed concurrent activities because that 
>> would not be consistent with the semantics of the current flow activity.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The completion condition may have different flavors, such as:
>>
>> (1) N out of M
>>
>> (2) The two most important requests completed
>>
>> (3) A Boolean condition operating upon process variables
>>
>>  
>>
>> Not all activities must complete in order the enclosing flow activity 
>> to complete. The way to identify that an enclosed activity did not 
>> complete is to propagate faults. We may distinguish between severe 
>> faults and those that can be ignored. Severe faults cause the 
>> enclosing flow activity (or more precisely, enclosing scope) to 
>> terminate the flow activity, including all active concurrent 
>> activities, and corresponding fault handler may be initiated. Other 
>> faults may be ignored - the flow activity is "informed" that a 
>> concurrent activity did not complete but still allows other active 
>> concurrent activities to continue with execution.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ignore semantics
>>
>> =================
>>
>> Faults thrown within enclosed concurrent activities/scopes and not 
>> handled by local fault handlers are rethrown. Enclosing <flow> element 
>> decides which of these rethrown faults can be ignored. This new 
>> "ignore" semantics should be part of the completion condition and 
>> should apply to all enclosed activities. This new semantics does not 
>> introduce a new fault handling mechanism. It is needed for identifying 
>> how many of the enclosed activities failed.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Proposed syntax
>>
>> ================
>>
>> <flow standard-attributes>
>>
>>    standard-elements
>>
>>    <completionCondition/>?
>>
>>    <links>?
>>
>>       <link name="ncname">+
>>
>>    </links>
>>
>>    activity+
>>
>> </flow>
>>
>>  
>>
>> <completionCondition>
>>
>>    <conditions branch="xsd:integer"?
>>
>>                expression=xpath?/>?
>>
>>    <ignoreFaults>?
>>
>>       <fault name="qname"? value="ncname"?/>*
>>
>>       <ignoreAll/>?
>>
>>    </ignoreFaults>
>>
>> </completionCondition>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Attribute branch is used to specify a condition of flavor "wait for 
>> /N/ out of /M/ activities to complete", or more precisely value N. 
>> Attribute expression is used to specify a Boolean condition operating 
>> upon process variables or a condition of flavor "the two most 
>> important requests completed".
>>
>>  
>>
>> Both conditions ( branch and expression) may be specified at the same 
>> time. They will be checked when one instance of the scope activity 
>> reaches the end. If at least one condition evaluates to true all 
>> active instances will be terminated.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Element <ignoreFaults> specifies faults that may be ignored. Element 
>> fault is used to specify a fault which may be ignored (fault name and 
>> fault data may be specified). Element <ignoreAll> would mean that all 
>> faults thrown/rethrown by any concurrent activity/scope may be 
>> ignored. If this element is specified <fault> element must be omitted.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Completion condition failure
>>
>> =============================
>>
>> A new standard fault, e.g. completionConditionFailure, should be 
>> introduced to notify that the completion condition of a flow activity 
>> evaluated to false (note: all concurrent activities have been 
>> completed). The fault is thrown in the scope enclosing the flow element.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Completion condition and links
>>
>> ==============================
>>
>> There should be no difference between a flow activity with a 
>> completion condition and a flow activity without completion condition. 
>> For example, if the completion condition fails all links leaving the 
>> flow activity should have value "false" (or be reverted to a negative 
>> status).
>>
>>  
>>
>> There are just a few additional rules:
>>
>> (1) Let's assume enclosed activity A is the source of a link. If the 
>> completion condition evaluates to true and activity A is not completed 
>> it will be terminated and the value of the link will be set to "false".
>>
>> (2) Let's assume enclosed activity A is the source of a link and the 
>> activity failed but the fault is "ignored" by the enclosing flow 
>> activity. The value of the link will be set to "false".
>>
>>  
>>
>> New function for completion condition of flavor "the two most 
>> important requests completed"
>>
>> ============================================================================================ 
>>
>>
>> For completion conditions of flavor "the two most important requests 
>> completed" standard attribute "name" must be specified for all 
>> enclosing activities in order to be able to distinguish them. In 
>> addition a new function, e.g. isCompleted('activityName') must be 
>> introduced. The semantics of the function is: if activity completed 
>> successfully the function returns value true.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Example
>>
>>     <completionCondition expression=
>>
>>            "isCompleted('A') AND isCompleted('B')"         
>>
>>      </completionConditions>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ivana
>>
>>  
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     *From:* Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
>>     *Sent:* Samstag, 11. September 2004 00:49
>>     *To:* Axel Martens
>>     *Cc:* 'edwink@collaxa.com <mailto:edwink@collaxa.com>'; Trickovic,
>>     Ivana; 'satisht@microsoft.com <mailto:satisht@microsoft.com>';
>>     'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>     <mailto:wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>'; Alex Yiu
>>     *Subject:* Re: [wsbpel] Issue 6 - Rough draft of proposal for vote
>>
>>
>>     Hi, Axel,
>>
>>     Thanks for liking parts of my proposal so far.
>>     Actually, the idea of my proposal is borrowed from a part of
>>     presentation from Ivana and Dieter Roller in March F2F. I just
>>     generalize it to apply to <flow> also.
>>
>>     About using links or not:
>>     I don't have a huge opposition to Axel's proposal which enriches
>>     the semantics of joinCondition evaluation. However, it is not that
>>     difficult for people to make mistakes in joinCondition. Look at
>>     the 2-out-of-3 example. The join condition already gets so
>>     complicated. If people make a mistake in their joinCondition, the
>>     whole flow can get struck for no good reasons. (The
>>     completeCondition approach will less likely to have the whole flow
>>     struck. Because, it does not introduce a new parallel activity in
>>     the flow). But, if this is what Petri-net-oriented and
>>     control-link-oriented audience really want, I can accept it in a
>>     sense, as long as this is not the only way to achieve similar
>>     business logic.
>>
>>     About static vs dynamic parallelism:
>>     Static parallelism is basically <flow> construct in BPEL. Dynamic
>>     parallelism is "parallel forEach" or "bundle". Issue 4 and 147 are
>>     related issues.
>>     http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue4
>>     http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue147
>>
>>     About "Terminating still running tasks versus proceeding in
>>     control flow while those tasks are
>>     still running":
>>     I am not 100% that I understand your question. Let me try to
>>     answer it anyway. The completeCondition is about triggering
>>     termination of still-running tasks. The "proceeding in control
>>     flow" (if I understand you correctly) will be handled by an outter
>>     flow. [I guess it is related to (hotel and (train or plane)) flow??]
>>
>>     About changes of "forcedTermination" fault handler:
>>     If you got a chance to see some recent emails on Issue 135, Satish
>>     has recently suggested to remove the notion "forcedTermination"
>>     fault and replace its fault handler with cancelHandler. Frank,
>>     Yaron, Edwin and I all agree with this direction. Because,
>>     overloading fault with the concept of "forcedTermination" is a
>>     "false economy" and it creates quite a bit of unnecessary confusion.
>>
>>     I don't think we should go back to this route or even further
>>     overload the "forcedTermination" fault handler semantics. Because,
>>     fault handling is way too generic and the changes you mentioned
>>     will create even more confusion. (e.g. Will this change of marking
>>     as "completed" apply to all "forcedTermination" fault handler /
>>     cancel handler of all scopes? )
>>
>>     I guess most of us agree that we should have a new mechanism to
>>     kill / do an early completion of a flow in a nice and clean way.
>>     However, overloading a standard fault handler does not seem to be
>>     the best one. I would rather introduce a construct which is very
>>     specific to <flow> or parallel-forEach. For example, this
>>     <completeCondition> construct or maybe a new activity called
>>     <completeFlow />.  I will send out more emails on joint thinking
>>     of both Issue 6 and Issue 135.  Please stay tuned.
>>
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Alex Yiu
>>
>>
>>     Axel Martens wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     I like the simplicity of the syntax of Alex's proposal. Although,
>>>     for me it is quite easy to model in terms of links and join
>>>     conditions, and I want to keep my proposal alive (because of the
>>>     minimal changes to BPEL's syntax and semantics), it looks like a
>>>     nice macro to provide more convenience to the customers.
>>>
>>>     Alex, could you shortly explain to me, what do you mean by static
>>>     and dynamic parallelism? How do you handle the two different cases
>>>     after evaluating the completeCondition: Terminating still running
>>>     tasks versus proceeding in control flow while those tasks are
>>>     still running (Sorry, I missed your previous emails)?
>>>
>>>     I agree to Alex's opinion, that we need a mechanism to kill
>>>     parallel flow nice and clean. This could be done either by a new
>>>     mechanism which does not throw a fault or by changing the way
>>>     fault are handled. I have discussed already an example of the
>>>     second case with Ivana, and I like to tell you, what I have in
>>>     mind. Look at the following example:
>>>
>>>     <scope name="scopeFlow">
>>>       ...
>>>       <flow>
>>>         <link name="linkA"/>
>>>         <link name="linkB"/>
>>>
>>>         <scope name="scopeA">
>>>           ...
>>>           <invoke name="A" ...>
>>>             <source linkName="linkA" ...>
>>>           </invoke>
>>>         </scope>
>>>
>>>         <scope name="scopeB">
>>>           ...
>>>           <invoke name="B" ...>
>>>             <source linkName="linkB" ...>
>>>           </invoke>
>>>         </scope>
>>>
>>>         <throw name="C" faultName="bpws:forcedCompletion"
>>>                joinCondition="linkA OR linkB"
>>>     joinEvaluation="immediate">
>>>             <target linkName="linkA" ...>
>>>             <target linkName="linkB" ...>
>>>         </throw>
>>>
>>>       </flow>
>>>     </scope>
>>>
>>>     First, I explain the situation: In the example above, activity C
>>>     will be executed if one of the two activities A and B was
>>>     successfully completed. Activity C throws the fault
>>>     "forcedCompletion". Like each other fault, this forces the scope
>>>     "scopeFlow" to terminate still running activities. Assume, there
>>>     was a fault handler defined in this scope which catches the fault
>>>     "forcedCompletion" (omitted in here), the process continues after
>>>     scope "scopeFlow". A problem arises, if scope "scopeFlow" should
>>>     be compensated. Because it was exited from a fault handler, no
>>>     compensation handler was installed.
>>>
>>>     Now, I explain my solution: In the example, I have chosen a new
>>>     "standard" fault name: "forcedCompletion". The only necessary
>>>     change is to allow a fault handler that catches this fault to
>>>     install a compensation handler for the same scope, i.e. to mark
>>>     the scope "scopeFlow" as "completed" instead of "exited".
>>>
>>>     The standard compensation mechanism will only undo those
>>>     ("scoped") activities within the scope, which actually have been
>>>     successfully completed, i.e. scopeA or scopeB or may be both.
>>>
>>>     Axel.
>>>     ----------------------------------------
>>>     Axel Martens
>>>
>>>     Post Doc Researcher
>>>     Component Systems Group
>>>     IBM TJ Watson Research Center
>>>     Hawthorne, NY (USA)
>>>     Phone: (914) 784-7480
>>>     E-mail: amarten@us.ibm.com <mailto:amarten@us.ibm.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>     *Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com> <mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com>*
>>>
>>>     09/10/2004 12:10 AM
>>>
>>>     	
>>>     To
>>>     	Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com> <mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com>
>>>     cc
>>>     	"Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com>
>>>     <mailto:ivana.trickovic@sap.com>, Axel Martens/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
>>>     "'edwink@collaxa.com'" <mailto:%27edwink@collaxa.com%27>
>>>     <edwink@collaxa.com> <mailto:edwink@collaxa.com>,
>>>     "'satisht@microsoft.com'" <mailto:%27satisht@microsoft.com%27>
>>>     <satisht@microsoft.com> <mailto:satisht@microsoft.com>,
>>>     "'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org'"
>>>     <mailto:%27wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org%27>
>>>     <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>>     <mailto:wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>, Alex Yiu
>>>     <alex.yiu@oracle.com> <mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com>
>>>     Subject
>>>     	Re: [wsbpel] Issue 6 - Rough draft of proposal for vote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     	
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Here are some examples how to use completeCondition to express
>>>     similar business logic in Axel's previous email:
>>>
>>>     (A) "Select one out of three" example:
>>>     <flow>
>>>        <completeCondition *branch="1"* />
>>>        <invoke name="CheckAirlineA" ... />
>>>        <invoke name="CheckAirlineB" ... />
>>>        <invoke name="CheckAirlineC" ... />
>>>     </flow>
>>>
>>>
>>>     (B) "Select two out of three" example:
>>>     <flow>
>>>        <completeCondition *branch="2"* />
>>>        <invoke name="AskRefereeA" ... />
>>>        <invoke name="AskRefereeB" ... />
>>>        <invoke name="AskRefereeC" ... />
>>>     </flow>
>>>
>>>     As you guys can see, the completeCondition declaration is very
>>>     straight forward and simple. No complicated links and
>>>     joinCondition usage.
>>>
>>>     (C) "(Plane or Train) and Hotel" example: It would become two
>>>     flow constructed (nested).
>>>
>>>
>>>     <assign> ... <to variable="planeResult"></assign>
>>>       <!-- initialize "planeResult" with NOT-OK value -->
>>>     <assign> ... <to variable="trainResult"></assign>
>>>       <!-- initialize "trainResult" with NOT-OK value --> *
>>>     <flow name="checkIterinary">*
>>>        *<flow name="PlaneOrPlane">*
>>>           <completeCondition>
>>>                fn:planeOK(planeResult) *or* fn:trainOK(trainResult)
>>>           </completeCondition>
>>>           <invoke name="CheckPlane" outputVariable="planeResult" ... />
>>>           <invoke name="CheckTrain" outputVariable="trainResult" ... />
>>>        *</flow> *
>>>        <invoke name="checkHotel" /> *
>>>     </flow>
>>>     <switch name="bookingSwitch">*
>>>        <case>
>>>            <condition>
>>>            (fn:planeOK(planeResult) *or* fn:trainOK(trainResult))
>>>     *and* fn:hotelOK(hotelResult)
>>>            </condition>
>>>            <invoke name="invokeBooking" ... />
>>>        </case>
>>>        <otherwise>
>>>              <invoke name="writeInformation" ... />
>>>        </otherwise> *
>>>     </switch>*
>>>
>>>
>>>     Please note that regardless whether we pick a link-oriented
>>>     approach or completeCondition approach:
>>>
>>>         * The initialization of result variables are needed because
>>>           of potential cancellation of one of the invoke between
>>>           train and plane
>>>         * The "fn:*()" represents the logic to determine whether a
>>>           traveling resource is available. They are used in either
>>>           the transitionCondition of links or the condition of
>>>           switch/case.
>>>
>>>     As you guys see, we don't need declare to six links. The
>>>     completeCondition and case-condition are much simpler and easier
>>>     to understand.
>>>
>>>     I attach a diagram to illustrate the above flows.
>>>
>>>     I guess we can still more time in terms of refiniment of
>>>     joinCondition evaluation. However, I don't think that should be
>>>     the only approach to achieve complete condition related logic.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks!!!
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>     Alex Yiu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Alex Yiu wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     +1 to what Ivana said in general.
>>>
>>>     Few points to add:
>>>
>>>         * Axel's proposed enhancement to control links evaluation
>>>           works to an extent for static parallelism  (e.g. <flow>).
>>>           However, control links do not work well in dynamic
>>>           parallelism (e.g. "parallel forEach" or "bundle"). I think
>>>           the notion of completeCondition (borrowed from Ivana and
>>>           DK) is general enough and it should be applied to both
>>>           static and dynamic parallelism. A general completeCondition
>>>           mechanism will be easier for BPEL users to learn.
>>>         * Even in a pure static parallelism case, completeCondition
>>>           has much better code clarity. It is more declarative and
>>>           easier for BPEL users to understand. It will eliminate
>>>           significant amount of joinCondition programming, which may
>>>           be error prone. (I will send another email later to show
>>>           how completeCondition can be used to express the same
>>>           semantics of Axel's example).
>>>         * In one of my previous emails, I also tried to use a "macro"
>>>           way to illustrate how outstanding running flows can be
>>>           cancelled by throwing a fault within a scope. The
>>>           illustration has the same compensation handler installation
>>>           problem that Ivana has pointed out. The "illustraction
>>>           macro" does NOT carry a desirable and intended semantics.
>>>           We need to create / describe a new mechanism to cancel
>>>           parallel flow without throwing a fault. (That was discussed
>>>           briefly between Edwin and me at Oracle).
>>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>     Alex Yiu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Trickovic, Ivana wrote:
>>>     Axel,
>>>      
>>>     I find the idea interesting. In fact, I was discussing the
>>>     completion condition issue with Dieter Koenig during the last f2f
>>>     meeting and his suggestion was also to try to resolve this issue
>>>     using links. And we identified that several changes need to be
>>>     done, including removing restriction for jonCondition, that "the
>>>     join condition is evaluated as soon as all incoming links of the
>>>     activity are determined" - so definitely "immediate" semantics
>>>     needs to be introduced.
>>>      
>>>     I have the following comments on your proposal.
>>>     1. In your proposal you are using a fault
>>>     (bpws:forcedTermination) to terminate all active parallel
>>>     branches. But this changes the outcome of the flow activity. It
>>>     will always end abnormally and compensation handler (if it is
>>>     defined) will never be installed. Although completion condition
>>>     has evaluated to true and needed activities have completed the
>>>     enclosing flow activity will end abnormally. Is this really
>>>     intended semantics?
>>>      
>>>     2. Your proposal does not address some pain points. For example,
>>>     in case of "N out of M", N<M there many possible "variations":
>>>     (A) One enclosed activity may experience problems but the <flow>
>>>     activity may succeed
>>>     (B) One of enclosed activities may experience a severe error,
>>>     which may have impact on the <flow> activity
>>>     The question is what to do with running activities? In the latter
>>>     case, reasonable behavior would be: if one enclosed activity does
>>>     not succeed other running activities should be cancelled and the
>>>     flow activity should try to recover. In the former case, we
>>>     should allow active parallel activities to complete their work.
>>>     This is not supported in your proposal.
>>>      
>>>     Regards,
>>>      
>>>
>>>     Ivana
>>>
>>     [stuff deleted]
>>
> 


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