[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 207 - Revised description
I think of the <compensate/> activity as meaning "call the default compensation handler for the enclosing scope" where as I view <compensate scope="..."/> as meaning "call the compensation handler for the named child scope." The semantics are indeed different and a name change would seem called for. Yaron Satish Thatte wrote: > The use of <compensate/> without a scope name, which Yaron refers to, perhaps > should be named something different because it is different in kind from the > usual scope compensation activity. The latter is legal only in enclosing scopes. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *From:* Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > *Sent:* Thu 5/19/2005 10:54 AM > *To:* Furniss, Peter > *Cc:* wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 207 - Revised description > > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]