RE: [ws-bpel] Issue - 119 - Transition Conditions and Invoke FaultHandlers

[rkhalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

You bring up an interesting point. I always assumed from the wording of 
the spec that the implicit scope doesn't touch the links.. ie, they stay 
on the wrapped invoke .

The scope not touching the link is in-line with what happens for the 
implicit scopes that handle suppressJoinFault. In fact, the dpe 
semantics are based on that assumption.

The interesting bit comes when you read section 12.5.2 regarding the two 
together:

"In case this is an invoke activity (see Invoking Web Service 
Operations) with an inlined fault or compensation handler, the implicit 
scope for the fault and compensation handlers is merged with the 
implicit scope described here, which adds an additional fault handler 
for the bpws:joinFailure. "

So if the link *is* moved to the boundary then this breaks its 
suppressJoin handling, as the spec currently stands.

However, I agree with you that if the fault is handled (not by the 
suppress join handler) and the invoke's links go negative then this 
might come as a surprise to the process modeler. If we go the way of 
moving the links to the scope boundary then we need to modify the 
phrasing of the implicit scope merges definied in 12.5.2.

Another interesting case:
<invoke ...>
    <catch faultname="...:suppressJoinFailure">
    <sources><source linkName="blabla"/> </sources>
    <targets><target linkName="out1"/><target linkName="out2"/></targets>
</invoke>

vs.
<invoke suppressJoinFailure="yes"> ...</invoke>

I don't think the first one is allowed! Again my understanding is that 
you can only add catches that are WSDL faults on the operation you are 
trying to invoke - but I think the spec's wording is a bit loose on 
that(section 11.3) and making that restriction clear would be helpful.