[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] fault handling
Yes, it helps, thanks. Are there other effects when a scope fails? (other than the fact that it can't be compensated) alex Satish Thatte wrote: > Ah, I see the confusion. You can do exactly this kind of fault > *suppression* in BPEL. However, the scope that completes thus is not > successful in spite of the fact that it did not propagate the fault. > > In the coordination protocol in Appendix C, this is modeled by an > "exited" as opposed to "completed" signal to the enclosing scope. The > main distinction is that an exited scope cannot be compensated. > > Does that help? > > Satish > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Boisvert [mailto:boisvert@intalio.com] > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:52 AM > To: Satish Thatte > Cc: [unknown] > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] fault handling > > > Satish, > > I understand the current exception processing semantic but for my own > edification (and probably the list's), I would appreciate your > explanation on the rational behind the decision to have faults always > cause scopes to fail. > > I am used to the model where you can handle a fault and decide whether > or not the fault is propagated to a higher-level context. > > Example (in Java): > > try { > // normal processing > } catch ( Exception fault ) { > // decide to continue or propagate fault > if ( condition ) { > // handle exception > } else { > throw fault; > } > } > > regards, > alex >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]