RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] RE: Follow-up to WS-BPEL Issue 135

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Unless we hear an objection, "make it so" :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:45 AM
To: Francisco Curbera
Cc: Satish Thatte; Dieter Koenig1; bpel spec; Alex Yiu
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] RE: Follow-up to WS-BPEL Issue 135


Hi,

The changes proposed by DK do not seem to be controversial.
If that is the case, I can make it into the spec in my round of editing,

since I am going to fix something related to termination handler anyway 
(which was discovered before the F2F).

Regards,
Alex Yiu

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>I agree.
>
>Paco
>
>
>
>|---------+---------------------------->
>|         |           "Satish Thatte"  |
>|         |           <satisht@microsof|
>|         |           t.com>           |
>|         |                            |
>|         |           01/13/2005 12:45 |
>|         |           PM               |
>|---------+---------------------------->
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------|
>  |
|
>  |       To:       "Dieter Koenig1" <dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com>,
Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
|
>  |       cc:       "bpel spec" <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
>  |       Subject:  RE: Follow-up to WS-BPEL Issue 135
|
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>Agreed.  I believe this is incomplete editing (probably on my part).
>Editors, do you agree?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:24 AM
>To: Satish Thatte; Francisco Curbera
>Subject: Follow-up to WS-BPEL Issue 135
>
>
>
>
>
>Gentlemen, the issue 135 resolution introduced the
<terminationHandler>,
>which may contain <compensate> activities. This is only partially
>reflected
>in the spec. Additional places must be aligned. I assume this does not
>require an issue and can be done by the spec editing team :-) ...
>
>Section 6.2: replace
>"<compensate> activity can be used ONLY within a fault handler or a
>compensation handler (i.e. <catch>, <catchAll> and
<compensationHandler>
>elements)."
>with
>"<compensate> activity can be used ONLY within a terminationHandler,
>fault
>handler or a compensation handler (i.e. <terminationHandler>, <catch>,
><catchAll> and <compensationHandler> elements)."
>
>Section 6.2: replace
>"This construct can be invoked only from within a fault handler or
>another
>compensation handler."
>with
>"This construct can be invoked only from within a terminationHandler,
>fault
>handler, or another compensation handler."
>
>Section 13.3.3: add bullet
>"In a termination handler of the scope that immediately encloses the
>scope
>for which compensation is to be performed."
>
>Section 13.3.3: replace
>"Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or compensation
handler
>attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of compensation
>handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S."
>with
>"Note that the <compensate/> activity in a termination, fault, or
>compensation handler attached to scope S causes the default-order
>invocation of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly
nested
>within S."
>
>Section 13.5: replace
>"As stated earlier, the <compensate/> activity can only be used in
fault
>and compensation handlers"
>with
>"As stated earlier, the <compensate/> activity can only be used in
>termination, fault, and compensation handlers"
>
>Appendix C: in the documentation of the group "activity", replace
>"- compensate activity can be used ONLY within a fault handler or a
>compensation handler"
>with
>"- compensate activity can be used ONLY within a termination handler, a
>fault handler, or a compensation handler"
>
>Kind Regards
>DK
>
>
>
>  
>