[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: New and updated WS-BPEL issues
Submitter's proposal: I don't have one yet.
Links:
Changes: 7 Jan 2005 - new sub-issue
Status: received
Date added: 6 Jan
2005
Categories: Fault
handling
Date submitted: 15 December 2004
Submitter: Alex Yiu
Champion: Alex Yiu
Document: BPEL
specification
Description:
According to our current fault matching rules IF a fault has a body THEN it can only be three ways - by a catch that specifies the name and body, by a catch that just specifies the body or by catch all. But notice what can't catch it, a catch that just catches on the name.
That means, if someone needs to add a data body to the fault later (to add optional interesting data) then all existing catches will be broken.
How do we make it possible for people to later add bodies to BPEL faults without breaking BPEL code written assuming there is no fault body?
Please note that this problem already affect us on BPEL standard faults. We define BPEL standard faults with their name but without their bodies. If an implementation decides to introduce extra fault information in the body later, all existing fault handlers for that fault will not work. We need to ask users to change their fault handlers or add new fault handlers.
Proposed Solution:
(A) allow <catch faultName="qname"> to catch with fault data body as
well ?
(B) introduce a standard fault body that is thrown with all BPEL
standard faults. And, the fault body will contain an xsd:any ?
(C) add new
version of
(D) Other ideas ....
?
Links: Original
message, 15 Dec 2004 Alex
Yiu, 12 Jan 2005 Yaron Y.
Goland, 14 Jan 2005
Changes: 6 Jan 2005 - new issue;
13 Jan 2005 - fields: Links; 14 Jan 2005 - fields: Links
Status: received
Date added: 7 Jan
2005
Categories: Fault
handling
Date submitted: 23 December 2004
Submitter: Yaron Y. Goland
Description: If one
catches a fault and then modifies the fault variable and then rethrows the fault
what is rethrown? The original fault variable or the modified fault variable?
Similarly, with issue
12 : XML types and WS Interactions , if someone catches a messageType fault
using an element based catch and then uses rethrow, what is rethrown, the
original messageType fault or the element that was caught?
Submitter's proposal: Clarify the language to specify that the
original fault is always rethrown regardless of what variable is bound or
modified. So in the first example above the original variable, not the modified
version, would be rethrown. In the second example the original messageType
variable and not the element variable would be rethrown.
Links:
Changes: 7 Jan 2005 - new issue
Status: received
Date added: 18 Jan
2005
Categories: Specification
Editing
Date submitted: 13 January 2005
Submitter: Yaron Y. Goland
Description: Section
6.1 includes an example which imports schema elements from the (fictitious)
namespace "http://manufacturing.org/xsd/purchase". But the actual contents being
imported are never specified so the example cannot be
implemented.
Submitter's proposal: We should provide actual schema
definitions (they can be trivial), even if just in an appendix, so that all of
our examples are fully implementable.
Changes: 18 Jan 2005 - new
issue
Best
Regards,
Tony
Tony
Fletcher Technical
Advisor
| ||
Phone:
|
+44 (0) 1473 729537 | |
Mobile:
|
+44
(0) 7801 948219 | |
Fax:
|
+44 (0) 870 7390077 | |
Web: |
||
Cohesions™ | ||
Business
transaction management software for application
coordination | ||
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com | ||
Home: amfletcher@iee.org |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]