Re: [wsbpel] installing compensation handlers for faulted scopes

[Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@Sun.COM>]

Assaf Arkin wrote:
> 
[snip]
> Another possibility:
> 
> 3. 'throw a new fault' implies that the fault handler may have succeeded
> to undo/redo the activity and so the activity has been recovered.
> However, the activity did not return any outcome that is useful for
> activity B and so activity B should not execute.

if one were to make the assumption that the process execution has to make
forward progress, irrespective of whether predecessor action(s) completed
successfully or not, then i suppose the current model in the spec works quite
well, since the fault handler simply cleans up the failed action, in spite of
the fact that the successor action(s) have to track more state. thanks.