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 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision


+1

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
>Sent: 16 September 2004 20:30
>To: Francisco Curbera
>Cc: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>
>
>I don't suppose that the assembled could be convinced that since 
>appendix C is non-normative and since the group already has a ton of 
>text to do full reviews on perhaps we could publish appendix C 
>separately? This would be one less thing for the entire group 
>to have to 
>review in order to get out the main spec. Since the text is anyway 
>non-normative what real damage is done if it is published stand alone?
>
>	Just a thought,
>
>		Yaron
>
>Francisco Curbera wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>> Here is IBM's feedback on your proposed resolution.
>> 
>> We agree that Appendix C  provides important value in 
>helping clarify 
>> the interaction between BPEL and distributed protocols. That was the 
>> original motivation for the appendix; in its current form (modulo 
>> references to the WS-BA spec) it does this job appropriately 
>and that 
>> is why we agreed that it should not be removed. Our major 
>concern with 
>> the proposed changes is that the new text only deals with localized 
>> behavior and does not help anymore in interoperability scenarios. In 
>> that case we think it would be better to leave it out of the 
>document.
>> 
>> More specifically, these are the two issues that concern us:
>> 
>> 1. Missing fault and compensation-fault acknowledgements: The state 
>> diagrams are meant to accommodate any underlying infrastructure and 
>> therefore we believe that every transition requires some form of 
>> protocol-level acknowledgement to assure the partner has 
>processed the 
>> signal.
>> 
>> 2. Exit Handling: We need to allow a nested scope to unilaterally 
>> leave the workscope.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Paco
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                                                              
>                                                               
>              
>> 
>> 
>>                       "Furniss, 
>> Peter"                                                       
>                                             
>> 
>> 
>>                       <Peter.Furniss@chor        To:       "Satish 
>> Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>, 
><wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>        
>> 
>>                       eology.com>                
>> cc:                                                          
>                            
>> 
>> 
>>                                                  Subject:  
>RE: [wsbpel] 
>> Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision                     
>> 
>>                       08/25/2004 02:04 
>> PM                                                           
>                                      
>> 
>> 
>>                                                              
>                                                               
>              
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sounds reasonable  - "Success" should be changed to 
>"Succeeded" by the 
>> same count.
>> 
>> Peter
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: 25 August 2004 18:15
>> To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> It would be helpful to follow the original convention of ending all 
>> signals from a nested scope with ‘ed – by this convention “Fault” 
>> would be “faulted”.  Thus all these signals look informative as 
>> opposed to imperative.
>> 
>> Satish
>> 
>> 
>> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:19 AM
>> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>> 
>> Forgot to set the title so my own scripts will link the thread.  
>> Please reply to this thread, not my original one.
>> 
>> Peter
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Furniss, Peter
>>  Sent: 18 August 2004 14:57
>>  To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>  Subject: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>>  At last, the proposed text for appendix C from Alastair and 
>myself.  
>> Thanks also to Tony Fletcher for comments.
>> 
>>  The bit that gave us pause was the introduction - the difference 
>> between a  notionally monolithic BPEL implementation and a general 
>> distributed case  becomes questionable if in fact the BPEL 
>> implementation is federated -  especially when, e.g., 
>different flows 
>> are running in separate processes  that could fail independently.
>> 
>>  Peter
>> 
>>  ------------------------------------------
>>  Peter Furniss
>>  Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
>>  web: http://www.choreology.com
>>  email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
>>  phone: +44 870 739 0066
>>  mobile: +44 7951 536168
>> 
>
>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/lea
ve_workgroup.php.




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