[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]