[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
If more than one fault is thrown then only one is handled by a fault handler, either in the same or in an enclosing scope. All other faults are lost. This rule applies to bpws:missingReply as well. In (2), the check allows to throw bpws:missingReply to an enclosing scope after a different fault has been handled in the scope that completes unsuccessfully. The "different fault" may be a different "instance" of a bpws:missingReply fault as well. Do you still see an issue w.r.t this behavior, or can you suggest better language for 221 that would not trouble you :-) ? Kind Regards DK Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com To > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org cc 25.01.2006 22:35 Subject Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote I had sent this question to the irc during the meeting before I had to go. Don't know if it got discussed or not. point (2) - why is this only "(for a different fault)"? more specifically: - if there is more than one IMA that caused the fault to be thrown, and there is still at least one open (but less than before) at the end of the <catch missingReply>, what happens? - if the <catch missingReply> opens a new IMA that it doesn't close before it's done, what happens? the inconsistent nature of dealing with these, especially since they can exitOnStandardFault, truly troubles me. Danny Dieter Koenig1 wrote: > Two additional changes to the 221 resolution (friendly amendments): > > (A) First sentence: Drop "during termination of a scope, " > (B) Appendix A (missingReply standard fault): > > Result: > > (A) Add to the end of 14.4: > -------- > The standard fault bpws:missingReply can also be detected if one or more > receive operations using a partner link or message exchange defined in the > scope remain open. > (1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope have > completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected > then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it as this > is still inside of the scope. > (2) If a fault handler (for a different fault) has completed then a check > for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then a > bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or > rethrowing other faults from a fault handler). > (3) If a fault handler itself throws or rethrows a different fault to the > parent scope then no check for missing replies is made, so a > bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (similar to a case where multiple > faults have been detected and only one gets propagated). > (4) If the termination handler is executed then no check for missing > replies is made, so a bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (like any other > fault thrown in the termination handler). > -------- > > (B) Change Appendix A (missingReply standard fault) from: > -------- > Thrown when a receive has been executed, and the process instance reaches > the end of its execution without a corresponding reply having been > executed. > -------- > To: > -------- > Thrown when a receive has been executed, and the process instance or a > scope reaches the end of its execution without a corresponding reply having > been executed. > -------- > > Kind Regards > DK > > ----- Forwarded by Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM on 25.01.2006 17:39 ----- > > Dieter > Koenig1/Germany/I > BM To > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > 19.01.2006 17:58 cc > > Subject > [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor > Vote > > > > > > > > > > The last paragraph of section 14.4. "Web Service Operations" (starting with > "The fourth extension ...") introduces the standard fault > "bpws:missingReply". > > Add the following text to the end of the paragraph: > > -------- > The standard fault bpws:missingReply can also be detected during > termination of a scope, if one or more receive operations using a partner > link or message exchange defined in the scope remain open. > (1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope have > completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected > then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it as this > is still inside of the scope. > (2) If a fault handler (for a different fault) has completed then a check > for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then a > bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or > rethrowing other faults from a fault handler). > (3) If a fault handler itself throws or rethrows a different fault to the > parent scope then no check for missing replies is made, so a > bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (similar to a case where multiple > faults have been detected and only one gets propagated). > (4) If the termination handler is executed then no check for missing > replies is made, so a bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (like any other > fault thrown in the termination handler). > -------- > > Kind Regards > DK > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]