[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 25 - Consistent enablement of compensation handlers
Assaf Arkin wrote: > Personally, I would rather see that as being a property of the service > interface or the endpoint. That way, I can use a service that does not > necessarily have a BPEL associated with it and determine whether it > supports compensation at design time or run-time. A coordination > protocol can provide a feature or policy that can be used to that > effect. But if the only case where you want to determine/control is > when using BPEL, then it makes sense that this feature is part of the > BPEL language. > > Do you think there's a case for services that do not have an > associated BPEL abstract, but still want to expose/control that aspect > of their behavior? mm1: Assaf, wouldn't the function be more flexible and extensible in the long term if BPEL may or may not be in control. Clearly with a coordination framework (or when context is applied), that may not be true. Thanks.