I think the idea is not to get into the business of specifying the magic
switch but to recognize that real world engines will need to provided it.
Any solution that relaxes the requirement to process this situations as
formal faults would help. I like Dieter's proposal in particular but I
don't think that is the one. For example, a process author may be given the
ability may decide if he/she wants to explicitly take control of system
faults or not - that would also help. My point is that the current
situation forces process authors to do this and disallows other forms of
engine support.
Paco
"Yaron Y. Goland"
<ygoland@bea.com> To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, Danny van der Rijn
02/07/2005 03:12 <dannyv@tibco.com>, wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
PM Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue
Please respond to Announcement)
ygoland
I think the core of the problem is another part of our ever increasing
elephant.
Lots of systems are going to have a magic switch that I strongly
encourage us not to attempt to specify in BPEL both because it's at
least 80% out of scope and because it will take a long time to agree on
the semantics.
That switch will specify (either on a process level or perhaps a scope
level) what to do if certain kinds of faults are thrown. One of the key
faults this switch will focus on are system faults.
This switch will typically have at least two settings.
Setting #1 - If a system fault is thrown immediately freeze the process
and call the admin for help who can then edit the process to fix things.
Setting #2 - If a system fault is thrown then send a note to the admin
but let the fault go through the normal fault handlers.
Both the first and second settings are possible with the existing spec.
The first behavior through an out of scope operational override and the
second behavior is pretty much our default behavior.
Issue 190 would make the second setting effectively impossible since it
would be illegal to ever allow system faults to go through normal fault
handling. But as Alex and others have convincingly argued there are many
interesting cases in which it makes sense to allow system faults to go
through normal fault handling.
In terms of maximizing portability I think we should stick with our
current behavior and leave the 190 style behavior to out of scope
extensions.
Yaron
Francisco Curbera wrote:
I guess one of the points of the immediate termination condition is that
termination is essentially always invisible to partners of the process.
The
net effect of this change (and from my perspective the actual aim of this
proposal) would be to allow engines the flexibility to deciding how to
deal
with these situations, termination being an option. Any form of standard
fault semantics limit that flexibility because the engine would be forced
to follow the usual scope termination/fault propagation behavior with
likely the result of discarding many recoverable process instances - and
posisble days or months of process work.
Paco
Prasad
Yendluri
<pyendluri@webmet To: Francisco
Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
hods.com> cc: Danny van der
Rijn
<dannyv@tibco.com>, wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel]
Issue 190
- BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue
02/04/2005 02:30
Announcement)
PM
Hi,
1. Isn't this the same issue as the one raised by issue 187 where we ask
if
there are any constraints in handling of the standard faults? This is
proposing a specific resolution where it is recommended that the process
always terminates immediately.
2. I tend to side with Danny on this. I don't think we should require
that
the process terminates immediately always. IMO in at least certain cases
this may not be a fatal situation for the whole process (it could be
confined to the scope) and other parts of the process may be able to
continue by compensating for pertinent. Perhaps the impact could limited
to
the immediately confining scope and the process could continue, perhaps
the
area the fault occurred could be non-fatal to whole process (e.g. related
look-up rather than modification of any information) or caused by some
transient condition that could go away on a retry etc. I think the
process
(fault handler) should be given a chance to handle the situation rather
than terminate always.
3. If we do end-up going the "terminate" always way, we must minimally
*not* preclude logging the condition, which could be more intelligent if
the faults could be attached some "fault data" (ref issues 187 and 185).
Regards, Prasad
-------- Original Message --------
Subject Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed
Issue
: Announcement
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:23:17 -0500
From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
To: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>
CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Hi Danny,
BPEL so far does not support any technique for modularizing process
authoring, so the situation you describe is a bit out of scope right now.
In any case, my view is that the idea that authors of business process
are
going to be adding code to deal with things like unsupportedReference is
just not realistic. I would even argue that those faults don't actually
belong at the BP modeling level and need to be dealt with in a different
way.
Dieter's suggestion allows implementations to manage these situations in
the best possible way. This is specially important in the case of long
running processes, where months or years of work can be thrown out the
window when one of these faults is encountered (the current semantics
require the complete unwinding of the execution stack if the fault is not
caught and a generic catch all is essentially good for nothing).
Typically
you want to allow manual intervention to figure out whether the process
can
be repaired, terminated if not.
Paco
>From: Danny van der Rijn
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>cc:
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed
Issue Announcement
02/03/2005 01:47 PM
[Resending this with appropriate header to save Tony/Peter the trouble]
-1
As I pointed out in our last face to face, this kind of approach will
make
any kind of modularization extremely difficult. It will give no way for
a
developer of a piece of BPEL code to protect against the "modelling
error"
(legacy term: "programming error") of another modeller whose attempt to
model the real world failed in a tangible instance.
Danny
Tony Fletcher wrote:
This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of
"received". The status will be changed to "open" if the TC accepts
it
as identifying a bug in the spec or decides it should be accepted
specially. Otherwise it will be closed without further
consideration
(but will be marked as "Revisitable")
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 190: BPEL Internal Faults
Status: received
Date added: 3 Feb 2005
Categories: Fault handling
Date submitted: 3 February 2005
Submitter: Dieter Koenig1
Document: WS-BPEL Working Draft, December, 2004
Related Issues: Issue 163 : languageExecutionFault, Issue 169 :
Transition condition error handling clarification, and Issue 187 :
Legality of Explicitly throwing or rethrowing Standard faults.
Description:
There are a number of cases in the current spec where the behavior
of
a process is described as *undefined*, in particular, after
recognizing internal errors described as standard faults.
With the exception of "bpel:joinFailure", *all* of these situations
represent modelling errors that cannot be dealt with by the
business
process itself in a meaningful way. This behavior becomes even more
questionable for catchAll handlers that try to deal with multiple
application faults and unexpectedly encounter a standard fault.
Submitter's proposal: Instead of allowing processes to catch these
as
standard faults, we propose that the process instance must
*terminate* immediately when such a situation is encountered.
The behavior of terminate is well-defined in BPEL -- as far as BPEL
is concerned the instance execution ends when terminate is
encountered without any fault handling behavior. Any additional
facilities for extended support for, e.g., repair and continue, is
definitely out of scope.
This approach would also create a clear direction for dealing with
any pathological situation within an inlined language (Issue 163)
and
therefore also for errors within transition conditions (Issue 169).
Changes: 3 Feb 2005 - new issue
Best Regards,
Tony
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
.
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
.
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.