Just to make sure this one does not get lost: do we
have any suggested
wording for 221 different from the resolution in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200601/msg00074.html?
Kind Regards
DK
"Alexandre
Alves"
<aalves@bea.com>
To
01.02.2006 15:57
<chris.keller@active-endpoints.com>
, "Danny van der
Rijn"
<dannyv@tibco.com>,
<wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 -
Proposal
vor
Vote
Hi Chris, Danny,
I generally agree with Danny, now that I understood his example, I think
the user would find it strange that a 'throw foo' is executed, causing a
'missingReply' to be raised… I understand we do swallow faults, but
missingReply in particular seems like an extreme case as it is being
activated by a 'throw' (which terminated the scope).
Rgds,
From: Chris Keller [mailto:chris.keller@active-endpoints.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:32 PM
To: 'Danny van der Rijn'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
Hi Danny,
I think at the parent scope point the fault should and would have been
swallowed. So given an option of having a parent throw the
missingReply,
after handling some other fault, I’d leave things as they are. Of
course
that is just my opinion. I’m am still open to my other stated options
if
you or others care to consider them J.
- Chris
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:03 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
But now you're losing the other fault, which can't ever be "regenerated"
like a missingReply can. This isn't what I was suggesting. I was
suggesting that we leave Dieter's semantic alone for when a different
fault
is thrown (i.e. it takes precedence). I was merely pointing out that
there's still a missingReply, and it can be detected later.
Chris Keller wrote:
Hi Danny,
I think I would prefer a wording more like “if a fault handler completes
normally or abnormally (i.e. itself faults, throws or rethrows) a
missingReply is thrown if an open IMA is present. This happens
regardless
of whether there was an attempt to throw or rethrow another fault”. I
think we can make this happen by describing the scope state diagram in
such
a way that the check for the open IMA happens before the throw or
rethrow
of any other fault. All this is a mouthful and needs cleaning up, but
my
reasoning is that it is nicer if the point of the throw is the scope
causing the missingReply under all circumstances. One use case that
comes
to mind is exception handling procedures that allow manual intervention,
something that is outside the scope of the spec, but could be a useful
feature of a product.
- Chris
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:04 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
Chris -
I see missingReply as somewhat of a special case because it isn't
triggered
anywhere near any web service activity, yet it's a web-service fault. I
understand that there's no fault stack, yet on the other hand, this
fault
is triggered by a stack unwind of sorts, when something on the lexical
stack goes out of scope. All that would have to be done is a small
wording
change to achieve the behavior I'm talking about. Saying that when a
scope
completes, a missingReply is thrown if an open IMA is contained within
whose partnerLink or messageExchange definition is contained in the
scope
*or a scope that is nested within*
Danny
Chris Keller wrote:
Hi Danny,
Although what has been proposed may not be perfect it is consistent with
BPEL fault behavior in general. BPEL doesn’t maintain a stack of
faults,
so if more than one fault is generated at any given point then only one
fault is propagated to the fault handling. However the point you bring
up
is a good one. In that if you have a standard fault queued at the same
time as a user defined fault, should we choose the standard fault in
preference to the user defined fault? This may be logical given that
the
standard fault when using the exit option is much more severe and
typically
standard faults are not easily recoverable from as they are modeling
errors. If we applied that prioritization to your example then Scope B
would throw missingReply in preference to bar. It would have no effect
on
fault foo as the scope is still active during that processing. Any
thoughts on this treatment? Alternatively we could specifically call
out
missingReply and have it be thrown in preference to another fault when
completing a fault handler.
- Chris
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:35 PM
To: Alexandre Alves
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
Alexandre -
I see you're interpreting things differently than I am. I can see both
interpretations.
You interpret that missingReply is "thrown and lost". I interpret that
it
was never thrown. "The throwing was lost."
In any case, I would point out that to any external observer, (like the
one
who opened the IMA), no reply of any kind has happened, so the IMA is
still
open.
As far as the process goes, the activity's scope may be lost, which
brings
up interesting issues, but nevertheless, the activity has never been
replied to.
Danny
Alexandre Alves wrote:
Hi Danny,
You seem to bring up an important point, but I am having problems
understanding your example.
When scope B completes (with fault foo), then the IMA goes out of scope
and
hence a missing reply fault is thrown and lost. Why would the IMA still
be
open in scope A? When the (first) missing reply is raised it signifies
the
closing of the IMA… What did I miss from your example?
Rgds
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:10 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
I don't think that your intention for (2) is clear in the language.
Something along the lines of:
(2) If a fault handler has completed then a check
for missing replies MUST be made. If any missing reply other than the
exact
one that
caused a missingReply fault to be thrown initially is detected then a
bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or
rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).
As for (1), I am troubled that a fault that is serious enough to exit
the
engine could be lost so easily. But let's deal with a specific case:
Scope A
catch bar
empty
Scope B
catch foo
throw bar
sequence
receive (create open IMA)
throw foo
Scope B receives a message, creating an open IMA, and then throws foo.
Its
fault handler catches foo, and throws bar, thus losing the missingReply
fault. Scope A catches bar, and suppresses it. When "catch bar"
completes, the IMA is still open. Does Scope A throw a missingReply?
Or
is the fact that B ":lost" it mean that it's lost forever? I would vote
for the former (A throwing), but the text isn't clear to me as to what
happens.
Danny
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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