RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision

[Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Peter,

Here is IBM's feedback on your proposed resolution.

We agree that Appendix C  provides important value in helping clarify the
interaction between BPEL and distributed protocols. That was the original
motivation for the appendix; in its current form (modulo references to the
WS-BA spec) it does this job appropriately and that is why we agreed that
it should not be removed. Our major concern with the proposed changes is
that the new text only deals with localized behavior and does not help
anymore in interoperability scenarios. In that case we think it would be
better to leave it out of the document.

More specifically, these are the two issues that concern us:

1. Missing fault and compensation-fault acknowledgements: The state
diagrams are meant to accommodate any underlying infrastructure and
therefore we believe that every transition requires some form of
protocol-level acknowledgement to assure the partner has processed the
signal.

2. Exit Handling: We need to allow a nested scope to unilaterally leave the
workscope.

Regards,

Paco



                                                                                                                                          
                      "Furniss, Peter"                                                                                                    
                      <Peter.Furniss@chor        To:       "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>, <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>         
                      eology.com>                cc:                                                                                      
                                                 Subject:  RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision                      
                      08/25/2004 02:04 PM                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                          




Sounds reasonable  - "Success" should be changed to "Succeeded" by the same
count.

Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: 25 August 2004 18:15
To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision

Peter,

It would be helpful to follow the original convention of ending all signals
from a nested scope with ‘ed – by this convention “Fault” would be
“faulted”.  Thus all these signals look informative as opposed to
imperative.

Satish


From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:19 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision

Forgot to set the title so my own scripts will link the thread.  Please
reply to this thread, not my original one.

Peter
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Furniss, Peter
 Sent: 18 August 2004 14:57
 To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
 Subject: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
 At last, the proposed text for appendix C from Alastair and myself.
 Thanks also to Tony Fletcher for comments.

 The bit that gave us pause was the introduction - the difference between a
 notionally monolithic BPEL implementation and a general distributed case
 becomes questionable if in fact the BPEL implementation is federated -
 especially when, e.g., different flows are running in separate processes
 that could fail independently.

 Peter

 ------------------------------------------
 Peter Furniss
 Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
 web: http://www.choreology.com
 email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
 phone: +44 870 739 0066
 mobile: +44 7951 536168