Re: [wsbpel] Resolution to issue 10 - Implicit compensation Handler

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Yaron Goland wrote:

>I think the current mechanism specified in the spec is about as complex as
>we can expect most users to handle. Any additional complexity will benefit a
>relatively small group of people at the cost of confusing everyone else.
>
>I can, however, imagine certain communities having a well defined and
>compelling need for a different kind of default compensation handler. This
>kind of focused extensibility problem is something I expect to be very
>common in BPEL.
>
>Ideally we would add the ability to make policy statements inside of the
>BPEL's definition to provide information about any non-backwards compatible
>extensions made to the BPEL. A BPEL engine, during pre-processing, would
>read in the policy statements, see if there was any it didn't support and if
>there were any then reject the BPEL.
>
So are you saying I can extend the BPEL specification any way I want, 
and that would still be regarded as a BPEL implementation?

Arkin