[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21
Hi, I would like to propose to close Issue 21 with no further action. As Satish pointed out, the spec already includes a statement highlighting that faulted scopes will not be compensated even if the fault handler catches and manages the fault: "The completion of the activity of a fault handler, even when it does not rethrow the fault handled, is never considered successful completion of the attached scope and compensation is never enabled for a scope that has had an associated fault handler invoked." Thank you, Edwin -----Original Message----- From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:24 PM To: edwink@collaxa.com; Satish Thatte Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 Edwin, do you want to propose that we close Issue 21 with no further action or would you like me to do it? Thanks, Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:29 AM > To: 'Satish Thatte'; ygoland@bea.com > Cc: 'Edwin Khodabakchian' > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > > Satish, Yaron, > > "The completion of the activity of a fault handler, even when > it does not > rethrow the fault handled, is never considered successful > completion of the > attached scope and compensation is never enabled for a scope > that has had an > associated fault handler invoked." is clear enough. My bad. > > Edwin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:45 PM > To: edwink@collaxa.com; ygoland@bea.com > Cc: edwink > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > In some sense Java/C# cannot make the distinction that we are > discussing > here because they can only speak of the distinction between > scopes that > rethrow faults or suppress them. BPEL does support both > possibilities. The > distinction introduced by "can we compensate this" has no > parallel in Java > or C#. So I would not say that we have here an inconsistency > relative to > those languages. > > Did you have in mind adding something more expository than > the following > simple statement in the spec > > The completion of the activity of a fault handler, even when > it does not > rethrow the fault handled, is never considered successful > completion of the > attached scope and compensation is never enabled for a scope > that has had an > associated fault handler invoked. > > ?? > > Satish > > ________________________________ > > From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com] > Sent: Sun 2/1/2004 6:56 PM > To: Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com > Cc: 'edwink' > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > > > Yaron, Satish, > > Sorry for the delay. Here is the context: > > There were 2 discussions ([1], [2]) in May/June regarding > faulted scopes and > compensation handling. > [1] fault handling (Alex Boisvert, Satish Thatte) 5/26/2003 > [2] installing compensation handlers for faulted scopes > (Ram Jeyaraman, Assaf Arkin) 5/28/2003 > > One of the interesting points made in those discussions is that BPEL > faultHandlers are responsible for undoing whatever might have happened > before the fault but should *NOT* include logic that would > represent an > alternative way of completing the activity that threw and > exception. The > main reason here is that the scope would remain as faulted and no > compensation would be installed to compensate the work done > by the fault > handler. > > This behavior/pattern is different from how try/catch is used > in Java/C# and > therefore is this is not already documented in the spec it > might be worth > doing it. The goal of issue 21 was to make this explicit by using a > different term than catch but I would agree now that renaming > the construct > would be overkill. > > Best, > > Edwin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:47 PM > To: ygoland@bea.com; edwink@collaxa.com > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > Yes it doesn't appear. Edwin, you might have some language > in mind that > has changed but still offends or confuses. Please send up a pointer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:28 AM > To: edwink@collaxa.com; Satish Thatte > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > I believe that phrase has been deleted from the spec. At least I > couldn't > find it in the latest editor's draft. Satish? > > Yaron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:39 PM > > To: ygoland@bea.com > > Cc: 'Satish Thatte'; 'edwink' > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 21 > > > > > > Hi Yaron, > > > > I hope that you are doing well. Sorry for the delay in > > getting back to you > > regarding issue #21 (faultHandlers to be renamed > > cancellationHandlers). > > > > I have no problem dropping the issue. > > > > One request I have though is to clarify within the > > specification what people > > really mean when they say "faultHandlers/catch are not > > expected to do any > > forward looking work". > > > > Thank you, > > Edwin > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]