Re: [wsbpel] Issue - R8 - Proposal For Vote

[Dieter Koenig1 <dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com>]

+1

One minor: "... is one of cases of nested isolation and MUST be ..." -->
"... is a case of nested isolated scopes and MUST be ..."

Kind Regards
DK
                                                                       
 Dieter König                                Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com         IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
                                                                       
 Senior Technical Staff Member               Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426      Schönaicher Strasse 220
                                                                       
 Architect, Business Process Choreographer   Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890      71032 Böblingen
                                                                       
 Member, Technical Expert Council            Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464  Germany
                                                                       





                                                                       
             Alex Yiu                                                  
             <alex.yiu@oracle.                                         
             com>                                                       To
                                       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org     
             18.10.2006 04:10                                           cc
                                       Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>, 
                                       Mark Ford                       
                                       <mark.ford@active-endpoints.com>
                                                                   Subject
                                       [wsbpel] Issue - R8 - Proposal For
                                       Vote                            
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       





Hi all,

I think I need to add one more clarification for a negative case.
(underlined)

The follow changes applies to in Bullet 4 of Section12.7: (changes are
highlighted in GREEN)
============================
The compensation handler for an isolated scope does not share the isolation
domain of the associated scope. The isolation domain ends and the scope
snapshot is created when the normal processing of that isolated scope
completes. Afterwards, the compensation handler is installed. The
compensation handler actually shares the isolation domain of the invoking
activities (i.e. <compensate> / <compensateScope>) or implicit invoking
FCT-handler of the immediately enclosing scope, when the invoker of the
compensation handler is already within an isolation domain. (See scope
"FH_A" in the following examples.) If the invoker of the compensation
handler is not within an isolation domain, the execution of the
compensation handler for an isolated associated scope will be implicitly
isolated. Such an implicit isolation domain ends when the execution of such
a compensation handler ends. (See scope "FH_P" and scope "Q".) If the
invoker of the compensation handler is already within an isolation domain
and the invoked compensation handler is associated with an isolated scope,
such a scope definition is one of cases of nested isolation and MUST be
disallowed by static analysis. (See also [SA00091])

-----------------------------
 <scope name="A">
       <faultHandler>
             <catchAll>
                   <scope name="FH_A" isolated="true">
                         <sequence>
                             ...
                            <compensate />
                             ...
                         </sequence>
                   </scope>
          </catchAll>
    </faultHandler>
    <sequence>
          ...
          <scope name="B">
              <compensateHandler>
                  <sequence name="undoB_Seq">
                     ...
                  </sequence>
              <compensateHandler>
              <sequence name=doB_Seq">
              </sequence>
          </scope>
          ...
    </sequence>
</scope>
-----------------------------

In the above example, the <compensate/> activity will invoke the
compensationHandler of scope "B" (which performs sequence "undoB_seq") in
the isolation domain of scope "FH_A".

-----------------------------
 <scope name="P">
       <faultHandler>
             <catchAll>
                   <scope name="FH_P">
                         <sequence>
                             ...
                            <compensate />
                             ...
                         </sequence>
                   </scope>
          </catchAll>
    </faultHandler>
    <sequence>
          ...
          <scope name="Q" isolated="true">
              <compensateHandler>
                  <sequence name="undoQ_Seq">
                     ...
                  </sequence>
              <compensateHandler>
              <sequence name=doQ_Seq">
                  ...
              </sequence>
          </scope>
          ...
    </sequence>
</scope>
-----------------------------

In the above example, the <compensate/> activity is NOT already within an
isolation domain (say assuming scope "P" is the root scope of the process).
The execution of the CH of scope-Q will be isolated automatically. This
isolation domain ends when the execution of the CH of scope "Q" ends.

============================


I guess that is the final iteraton of this proposal.

And, this change would qualify a substantive change.


Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu