[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?
Satish Thatte wrote: >I don't buy the three days vs one day example - I don't see which >interfering shared variable access is essential in that example. > Sorry for the misunderstanding; I wasn't referring to the example in the spec; I was referring to the use of the travel agency example across many such process specs. What I meant (but did not spell out explicitly) was that suitable patterns of shared variable access could result in serialized execution of concurrent scopes. I don't believe static analysis of shared variable use can accurately detect this problem, though it may be able to warn about potential problems. >What did you have in mind for the handling of concurrency faults? >Retry? Failure? Some custom code? > This is really a specific case of the more general problem of fault handling / recovery in BPEL. The language should have decent support for this. In this case, I might follow a typical pattern: compensate for the activities completed in the failed scope, then retry it. Nothing fancy like custom code, as much as I admire Edwin's <exec> tags :-). Cheers, -Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]