Re: [wsbpel] Issue 36 - Multiple instances of event handler

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Satish Thatte wrote:

>Hmm.  This isn't how I was thinking of the alternatives.  Specifically,
>what you are calling "copy" was not an alternative I had thought of.  I
>was thinking of
>
><catch faultName="qname"? faultVariable="ncname"? faultType="qname"?>
>      activity
></catch>
>
>As opposed to
>
><catch faultName="qname"? faultVariable="ncname"?>
>  <scope>
>    <variables>
>       <variable name="ncname" messageType="qname"/>
>    </variables>
>      Activity
>  </scope>
></catch>
>
>As mere syntactic variants with absolutely identical semantics.
>
>I am uncomfortable with having to repeat the faultVariable name, check
>that it occurs, force every catch and event handler to have an outermost
>scope (yes I knopw that a catch handler might not have fault variable
>..)....
>
>I don't see what all this syntactic addition is buying us except the
>statement that variables can only be declared *syntactically* within
>scopes.
>  
>
+1

arkin


>I am deliberately going beyond today's catch syntax because I have a
>feeling we will need to catch faults by type eventually, esp relative to
>WSDL 1.2.
>
>And by the way the current catch syntax is broken because we make 
>
>A.  The faultName optional, and
>B.  the faultVariable ".. deemed to be declared by virtue of being used
>as the value of this attribute and is local to the fault handler .."
>
>Thus when the faultName is missing, the type of the faultVariable is
>unknown.
>
>Satish
>
>  
>