Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements todescriptions in section 5.2

[Simon D Moser <SMOSER@de.ibm.com>]

Peter,

as a clarification: We only applied it to only ONE spot in 5.2. The issue
is to handle it more generically. Therefore, it is NOT resolved!! It is
received and we need to decide whether we open it on the next call.

Cheers
/Simon
--------------------------------------------------
Simon Daniel Moser, M.Eng.
Business Process Solutions Development 1
IBM Boeblingen Laboratory
Schoenaicherstr. 220, 01/086
D - 71032 Boeblingen
Tel.: +49 - 7031 - 164304
IP Telephone Number (ITN): 39204304
email: smoser@de.ibm.com

Rule of thumb #3459835478: when you find yourself typing/copying the same
thing more than twice in a row, redesign or re-implement. No excuse
possible.




                                                                           
             ws-bpel issues                                                
             list editor                                                   
             <peter.furniss@er                                          To 
             ebor.co.uk>               wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org         
                                                                        cc 
             05/04/2006 01:21                                              
             AM                                                    Subject 
                                       [wsbpel] Issue - 278 - Add "Enforce 
                                       Statically" statements to           
             Please respond to         descriptions in section 5.2         
             wsbpel@lists.oasi                                             
                s-open.org                                                 
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




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 - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements to descriptions in
section 5.2


Status: received
Date added: 3 May 2006
Categories: Static Analysis
Date submitted: 03 May 2006
Submitter: Simon D Moser
Description: During the San Jose F2F, we encountered a duplicate normative
statement in Section 12.4 - italicised below
      A WS-BPEL process is allowed to rethrow the original fault caught by
      the nearest enclosing fault handler with a <rethrow> activity. A
      <rethrow> activity is allowed to be used within any fault handler and
      only within a fault handler. This syntactic constraint MUST be
      statically enforced. Here are some scenario that worth some
      elaboration:


The first sentence is a straight repetition from section 5.2 where the
second sentence adds some normative meaning that is NOT covered in 5.2. On
a vote it was decided that we move the italicised sentence to 5.2 and fix
up 12.4 appropriately. However, the point of this issue is that there are
more cases like that throughout the spec. Therefore, we should add (or
move) the sentence "This syntactic constraint MUST be statically enforced"
to all other applicable places in section 5.2
Resolution: This issue was opened and approved during the San Jose face to
face.
Changes: 3 May 2006 - 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 - 278 -
[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
- 278 - 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).


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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