Issue - 230 - Outgoing link from a fault handler

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

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 - 230 - Outgoing link from a fault handler

Status: received
Note: Issue submitted by issue list editor, at chair's request, following list discussion.
Date added: 21 Oct 2005
Categories: Links
Date submitted: 21 October 2005
Submitter:

Yuzo Fujishima , Dieter Koenig

Description: (from Yuzo Fujishima, 20 Oct 2005

In the last paragraph of "12.6 Flow",

>   In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary 
>   MUST be outbound, that is, it MUST have its source activity 
>   within the fault handler and its target activity within a 
>   scope that encloses the scope associated with the fault handler. 
What is the rationale behind the line above?

Example:

Scope A
  Sequence
    Scope B
      Sequence
        Scope C
          FaultHandler D
            Activity E
        Activity F
    Scope G
      Activity H
    Activity I

As far as I understand the specification,
Link from E:

• to F: Allowed, because B encloses C
• to H: Disallowed, because G does not enclose C.
• to I: Allowed, because A encloses C, although indirectly via B.

I don't quite understand why we should allow/disallow linking as above.

Some may claim:
E to H is allowed, because it is within A, because it is WITHIN A, although indirectly.

One of the problems is, IMHO, the definition of "WITHIN A SCOPE" is unclear.
Submitter's proposal: from Dieter Koenig1, 21 Oct 2005

Change the text in

> In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary MUST be outbound,
> that is, it MUST have its source activity within the fault handler and its
> target activity within a scope that encloses the scope associated with the
> fault handler.

Replacing "within a scope that encloses" with "outside of", to make it:

> In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary MUST be outbound,
> that is, it MUST have its source activity within the fault handler and its
> target activity outside of the scope associated with the fault handler.

Links: Yuzo Fujishima, 20 Oct 2005, Chris Keller, 21 Oct 2005, Dieter Koenig1, 21 Oct 2005
Changes: 21 Oct 2005 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 230 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 230 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).