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: Issue 25: Consistent enablement of compensation handlers


My intent with issue 25 is to point out to an inconsistency in the 
specification.

In my opinion it would be easier if we use the same constructs in both 
local and global scopes: a default compensation would be written as such 
(using <compensate/> as the only activity), and lack of compensation 
would mean that no work would be done. Since the semantic would be the 
same for a local and global scope, that would allow us to get rid of the 
enableInstanceCompensation attribute and ease the creation of a process 
definition by a modeling tool.

The issue is categorized as enhancement/clarification. Even if we decide 
to not make this enhancement, the text is still uncleared about the use 
of a compensation handler in combination with the 
enableInstanceCompensation attribute. I would sugget we consider a 
clarification to the text as one possible resolution.

arkin







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