Re: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 207 - Revised description

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

I'm not sure what you mean. Today it is legal and appropriate to use the 
compensate activity from inside of a fault handler. I've reviewed this 
mail twice and I'm still not clear as to your concern.

Could you please give a short example of something that you think is 
illegal in the spec today that this issue would now make legal that is 
causing you concern?

	Thanks,

		Yaron


Furniss, Peter wrote:
> Looking at the substance of this proposed issue, it seems to be proposing a 
> rather different model from the existing one.  Surely the existing model is 
> that, until a scope exits, anything that it has done but that will need 
> unwinding in the event of fault has to be coped with by the fault handler; after 
> the scope has exited, it is the responsibility of that scope's compensation handler.
>  
> There will be cases where some more sophisticated pattern might seem more 
> convenient - if scope B does operation b1, then b2, then b3, all directly in B, 
> then the fault handler may need to know if b2 has been done to work out if it 
> must undo it. The solution of course is to put the operations each in its own 
> scope, in which case B can leave it to the default fault handler to undo things 
> backwards, but only of the things that have finished.
>  
> The issue does raise some questions of what happens if a compensation handler 
> itself contains a scope.
>  
> 
> Peter
> 
> -----------------------------------
> Chief Scientist
> Choreology Ltd
> 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ, UK
> web: www.choreology.com
> mobile:  +44 7951 536168
>