Hi Charlton,
Yes, it will still retain the ability to catch fautls from an "invoke"
activity based on the QName defined in the related WSDL (WSDL 1.1).
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Charlton Barreto wrote:
Hi Alex,
Yes - it is one way it can be phrased. I'll annotate as follows:
"...still retain the ability to catch faults from an 'invoke'
activity [including invocations of BPEL 2.0 processes] based on the
WSDL 1.1 fault name."
Cheers,
-Charlton.
On 03/06/2005, at 08:47, Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi Charlton,
I am not 100% sure I understand your question.
If I am allowed to re-phrase your question, do you mean to ask?
"still retain the ability to catch faults from an 'invoke'
activity based on the WSDL 1.1 fault name"?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Charlton Barreto wrote:
Hi Alex,
I just wanted to clarify something which wasn't immediately
apparent catching up with this thread - does fault handling, with the
changes in this amended proposal, still retain the ability to receive
faults within a 'receive' based on the WSDL 1.1 fault name?
Cheers,
-Charlton.
On 02/06/2005, at 00:34, Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi all,
I have merged most of changes
suggested by Yaron as friendly amendment. And, I made a few minor other
changes as well. And, I have shown text Yaron (on computer screen
during F2F) and he feels comfortable with those text also.
Hence, this is updated version of the
proposal to vote (attached).
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
|