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

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I agree with Francisco. My real worry with Appendix C is that it is
essentially another
transaction/coordination protocol that needs supporting somehow in the wider
scheme of
things. Now OK, I believe the intention is that it can be mapped to WS-BA,
WS-TXM or whatever, but that mapping is not necessarily straighforward at
present and is it going to be any easier in the future as efforts on Web
Services transactions/coordination protocols evolve?

For expressing interoperability concerns, this appendix is obviously
necessary if we want to work purely in the domain of WS-BPEL. Of course
another approach to interoperability could be to deal with this at a more
abstract
level: define requirements without talking about message interactions and
then make a statement that interoperability is either down to the
implementations to guarantee if it is a requirement or its part of the
coordination protocol that
is used (e.g., if two implementations use WS-BA, then you'd hope they would
do so in an interoperable manner rather than use proprietary extensions).

I think removing the appendix is one option, but I do believe there is value
in keeping it in some form. It would be easier if the text was explicitly
non-normative, assuming we keep it.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
Cc: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision


>
>
>
>
> 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
>