[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 274 - orphaned IMA in compensationHandler
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your response. I like your proposal but it has a slight
difference in the outcome which I think is worth pointing out. I'm CC'ing the
list to get any other input.
Consider a faultHandler that has three <compensateScope> activities
in it. The first <compensateScope> invokes a compensation handler that for
whatever reason (modeling error or some other error condition) fails to close an
IMA it opened. In your scenario, this would be detected at the
compensationHandler's completion and result in the fault being propagated
to the FCT Handler, thereby terminating the handler and not invoking the other
compensateScope activities. This is good in the sense that we detect and handle
the orphaned reply closer to its source but the side effect is that we will not
run the additional compensation activities. In my proposal below these
compensation activities would still run since the check for orphaned IMA's
wouldn't be done until the originating faultHandler completed.
Also, the language for any propagation of a fault from a
compensationHandler should mention the source compensation activity as its
propagation target as opposed to the FCT Handler. I think it is more precise to
write compensation activity since this compensation activity could have a scope
around it which would catch any faults and allow the FCT Handler to continue
execution.
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:55 AM To: Mark Ford Cc: Alex Yiu Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 274 - orphaned IMA in compensationHandler Hi Mark, +1 to open this issue. Generally speaking, I would agree with your high level proposal. How about refining your proposal as follows: -------------------------- The same checking of orphaned IMA’s is performed, after the activity of a compensation handler have completed without any unhandled fault. If any orphaned IMA’s are detected, a bpel:missingReply fault MUST be propagated to the invoking FCT-handler and those IMA’s are no longer considered orphaned. If a unhandled fault different from bpel:missingReply occurs during the execution of the compensation handler, that fault is propagated to the invoking FCT-handler. The checking for orphaned IMA's is deferred to the invoking FCT-handler. The orphaned IMA's, if any resulted from the execution of the compensation handler, remain as such. -------------------------- A longer proposal than yours, but at the same time, it allows us to have a finer grain control missing replies. What do you think? Regards, Alex Yiu ws-bpel issues list editor wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]