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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

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


Subject: Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA)


I suggest that we take one of the examples used by Satish in the F2F (travel
procurement) and try to get down into the details of how exception
management and compensation management would be implemented. This will help
us flush out the details of how BPEL and WS-Transaction (BA) work together. 

If we decide that this is valuable, I volunteer to implement the BPEL
processes once the use case has been agreed on.

Thoughts?

Edwin 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:03 PM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> Satish Thatte wrote:
> 
> >The problem for BPEL is that it either goes into monolithic 
> "I specify 
> >everything" mode which we have all seen fail in the past, or 
> it sticks 
> >to its factored role and takes dependencies on things like WSDL, 
> >admittedly moving targets, that will define the aspects it leaves 
> >unspecified.  If we make interoperability dependent on 
> platform-level 
> >deployment modes I would argue that we have failed to maintain the 
> >loose coupling implicit in the web services architecture.
> >  
> >
> I perfectly agree. I don't think we should try and boil the 
> ocean, but we do need at least to interoperate.
> 
> >As for interop with WS-TX, specifically with the BA protocol(s), my 
> >personal opinion is that this is something we should look at very 
> >closely and do whatever is needed to make it happen.
> >  
> >
> Same here.
> 
> But again we need to formalize it. It's perfectly acceptable 
> for the spec to say that compensation for the process is 
> invoked in some implementation specific manner. WS-TX is one 
> such option. It's also perfectly acceptable for the spec to 
> have some non-normative reference to WS-TX to illustrate how 
> one would use WS-TX if they choose to, without precluding 
> using other mechanisms or not using any mechanism at all.
> 
> But imagine that two systems decide to use WS-TX and WS-TX 
> provides all the information they need to determine how to 
> send coordination messages around. And they also decide to 
> use BPEL, and BPEL provides the definition of the business 
> protocol which indicates the abillity to compensate. Are they 
> able to interoperate?
> 
> Or is there some minimal requirement from the spec without 
> which interoperability is not possible? If the spec doesn't 
> at least investigate that minimum requirement, then 
> interoperability would not be possible. To do that the spec 
> needs to at least acknowledge that WS-TX or a similar 
> protocol is one option for performing compensation.
> 
> When you do that certain issues arise which needs to be 
> clarified, non of which requires a wholesale rewrite of the 
> specification. But we can't resolve these issues unless we 
> make a point that we would address interoperability when BPEL 
> is used in combination with WS-TX. 
> Incidentally, doing so would clarify one of the most common 
> uses of a compensation handler at the process level, which is 
> not apparent from the current reading of the spec.
> 
> Again, what we both have in mind may be well and good and 
> actually work, but if it's not written down then it won't 
> help interoperability on a large scale.
> 
> arkin
> 
> >Satish
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> 



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