OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Generating faults when operations are used after theconversation has ended


Title: Re: [sca-bpel] Generating faults when operations are used after the conversation has ended
Which is why I've been mute.  :-)

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
492357C5.3030300@oracle.com" type="cite">

FYI: Please note that a new issue [1] has been filed in the assembly TC.
If this is resolved per the proposal it will make this discussion moot.

-Anish
--

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200811/msg00033.html

Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> I'm uncomfortable with this change.  I would be more comfortable with it
> if I were more comfortable with the original text, but I don't like
> that, either.
>
> SCA-BPEL doesn't get into the details of how conversations are handled
> the way that Java does, for instance, with things like @ConversationID,
> @Scope, etc.
>
> If I have a SCA-BPEL conversation that is surrounded by a loop, is that
> legal?  Should the conversation be re-initialized on each loop
> instance?  Currently, we say that we initialize the conversation when an
> EPR is initialized for a partnerLink.  That seems a bit arbitrary to me,
> and wouldn't work for many use cases.  Would that mean, for instance,
> that I start a conversation when I start the runtime, and I'm only
> allowed to end it once;  after that I can't use it??
>
> Even wthout loops, there seems to be some implication that we have one
> conversation instance per process instance, but given the way that the
> WS-BPEL spec assiduously avoids much mention of runtime, this is a very
> nebulous implication, indeed.
>
> In any case, I think that this whole section on conversations is VERY
> light.  I was OK with that until we started talking about changing it,
> and especially when we start talking about changing SHOULDs to MUSTs, as
> I can always ignore a SHOULD when I deem necessary :-)
>
> Danny
>
> Mike Edwards wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'll deal with the wording towards the end of my note.
>>
>> First, I'd like to tackle a question about the error here that was
>> bothering me on the call.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, for a CLIENT of a conversational service, it is
>> incorrect for that client to make any call to the conversational service
>> after it invokes an endConversation operation on the service.  The
>> "isCompleted" requirement does not help, in my opinion.  I agree
>> that without ordered delivery of the client request messages, then it
>> may so happen that no error occurs simply because the second
>> operation gets to the service ahead of the first operation, but it is
>> weird (in my opinion) to rely on such behaviour to avoid an error.
>>
>> In principle the client reference proxy will know that an error has
>> occurred, since it sees the endConversation operation called
>> followed by some other call - the proxy is in a position to report the
>> error immediately.  The sequence of operation calls is clearly
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Now to the words:
>>
>>
>> "Processes MUST NOT invoke an operation on a partnerLink with a
>> conversational interface after an /endsConversation/operation is invoked.
>> If this occurs, the SCA runtime SHOULD generate an
>> sca:ConversationViolation fault.
>> If it can be determined through static analysis that a process invokes
>> an operation on a conversational reference after an endsConversation
>> operation has been invoked, that process SHOULD be rejected by the SCA
>> runtime."
>>
>>
>> Yours,  Mike.
>>
>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
>> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431 
>> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
>>
>>
>> From:        Michael Rowley <michael.rowley@activevos.com>
>> To:  OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Date:        06/11/2008 17:16
>> Subject:     [sca-bpel] Generating faults when operations are used after
>> the conversation has ended
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The current spec wording says the following:
>>
>> "Any process which, through static analysis, can be proved to use an
>> operation on a conversational interface after an /endsConversation/
>> operation has completed SHOULD be rejected.  In cases where the static
>> analysis cannot determine that such a situation could occur, then at
>> runtime a sca:ConversationViolation fault SHOULD be generated by the
>> SCA runtime when using a conversational partner link after the
>> conversation has ended."
>>
>> If we didn't want to strongly encourage static checking for this, and
>> we don't really care if we have a rule that can't always be tested or
>> enforced, then we could replace both of these sentences with the
>> following:
>>
>> "Processes MUST NOT invoke an operation on a partnerLink with a
>> conversational interface after an /endsConversation/ is completed."
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> /
>> /
>>
>> /Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>> 3AU/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]