RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 5 - suspend/resume - is it just an implementation question ?

["Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>]

Dear Colleagues,

It may be mainly an implementation question, and therefore something
that the implementation sub-group may like to consider, but my personal
opinion is that there are also some implications for the use of the BPEL
language that may be at least warrant a 'Note' in the main specification
(as well as perhaps deeper consideration in any 'Implementers Guide the
implementation sub-group might father).  I am particularly thinking of
time.  There will be different affects on a process that is suspended
for a considerable period according to whether any time delays in a
process definition are relative or made absolute (i.e. there will be a
difference of behaviour under suspend / resume if the process says 'I
will do something if a reply is not received within 24 hours, than if it
calculates the absolute time 24 hours ahead and times out when that
absolute deadline passes).

I also assume that suspend / resume, if adopted, would be purely a
'local' action at a single system and would not involve communicating to
partner processes that it was going to suspend (and another
communication when it wakes up).  If suspend / resume is defined at all
then its local nature should be made clear (unless folk decide they do
want a 'global' or 'notified' suspend / resume in which case this will
have greater impact and will be made clear).

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 870 7390076   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: Furniss, Peter 
Sent: 22 October 2003 18:38
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 5 - suspend/resume - is it just an
implementation question ?


Arising from discussion on the issues group call, where we sought to
move some of the low numbered issues forward:



Should suspending a bpel process be considered a question for an
implementation and not part of the language. 

The ability to wait for a long time for something to happen can be
accomodated by pick, handlers and the like. Suspend would be more a
matter of stopping the clock (probably as a result of something
untoward) and therefore seems like it belongs at implementation level
(controlled from admin console/management interface) rather than
specified in the process definition.

However, though this seemed plausible, are there implications for
use-cases ? (i.e. use-cases that would want suspend/resume capability).

One possible solution would be to just reassign the target document of
the issue to "Use cases" or "Use cases/implmentation group" (yes, I know
they're not documents). 

Peter

------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd

   Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
   Business transaction management software for application coordination

web: http://www.choreology.com
email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 870 739 0066  <-- new, from 4 August 2003
mobile: +44 7951 536168

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.