Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 94 - Proposal to vote

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi all,

Issue - 94 - Proposal to vote

Some background from Issue 95:
(You can skip this part, if you don't care too much about the usage of schema validation)

A <rethrow /> activity element is introduced for Issue 95 (Rethrow a fault). In theory, we can use schema validation to make sure rethrow happens only within a fault handler. However, since XMLSchema version 1.* is mainly context free grammar like (as opposed to context sensitive), we may need to duplicate a lot of XML definition (e.g. "activity" vs "activityOrRethrow"; "tSequence" and "tSequenceWithRethrow" and etc), in order to achieve this constraint in schema validation. This kind of  overhead may be too much for such a minor syntax differentiation. Therefore, an easier route is taken by just adding "rethrow" to group "activity" and using implied semantics of the text of the main spec doc to carry out the post-schema validation

Therefore, I suggest to take a similar route for Issue 94

Future version of XML Schema (2.0?) may allow us to add "co-constraint" to specify this kind of contraints more effectively.

Proposal to fix issue 94:
(1) Adding compensate to group "activity"
(2) merge tActivityContainer and tActivityOrCompensateContainer
      by replacing all tActivityOrCompensateContainer with tActivityContainer
        [That means: all tActivityContainer now allows compensate activity.
           We should specify in the text in our spec that compensate activity is allowed only
            within a compensation handler]


What do you guys think?
Thanks!



Regards,
Alex Yiu

ws-bpel issues list editor wrote:

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 94 - Allowing a mix of "compensate" and other activities within a compensation handler or a fault handler

Status: open
Date added: 2 Feb 2004
Submitter: Ugo Corda
Date submitted: 28 January 2004
Description: The BPEL Schema only allows a single activity to be specified within a compensation handler or a catch clause in a fault handler. In case multiple activities need to be specified, they can grouped together under a "group" activity like <sequence> or <flow>. But that still does not allow mixing "compensate" with other activities, because the current syntax of sequence, flow, etc. exclude the presence of "compensate" among its children.
Changes: 2 Feb 2004 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 94 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).

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_workgroup.php.