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 - 182 - Proposal For Vote



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




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