OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed IssueAnnouncement)


1. Isn't this the same issue as the one raised by issue 187 where we ask if there are any constraints in handling of the standard faults? This is proposing a specific resolution where it is recommended that the process always terminates immediately.

2.  I tend to side with Danny on this. I don't think we should require that the process terminates immediately always. IMO in at least certain cases this may not be a fatal situation for the whole process (it could be confined to the scope) and other parts of the process may be able to continue by compensating for pertinent. Perhaps the impact could limited to the immediately confining scope and the process could continue, perhaps the area the fault occurred could be non-fatal to whole process (e.g. related look-up rather than modification of any information) or caused by some transient condition that could go away on a retry etc. I think the process (fault handler) should be given a chance to handle the situation rather than terminate always.

3. If we do end-up going the "terminate" always way, we must minimally *not* preclude logging the condition, which could be more intelligent if the faults could be attached some "fault data" (ref issues 187 and 185).

Regards, Prasad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue Announcement
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:23:17 -0500
From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
To: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>
CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org

Hi Danny,

BPEL so far does not support any technique for modularizing process
authoring, so the situation you describe is a bit out of scope right now.
In any case, my view is that the idea that authors of business process are
going to be adding code to deal with things like unsupportedReference is
just not realistic. I would even argue that those faults don't actually
belong at the BP modeling level and need to be dealt with in a different

Dieter's suggestion allows implementations to manage these situations in
the best possible way.  This is specially important in the case of long
running processes, where months or years of work can be thrown out the
window when one of these faults is encountered (the current semantics
require the complete unwinding of the execution stack if the fault is not
caught and a generic catch all is essentially good for nothing). Typically
you want to allow manual intervention to figure out whether the process can
be repaired, terminated if not.


>From: Danny van der Rijn                    
>To:       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org                                                    
>Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue Announcement 
        02/03/2005 01:47 PM                                                                                                                
[Resending this with appropriate header to save Tony/Peter the trouble]


As I pointed out in our last face to face, this kind of approach will make
any kind of modularization extremely difficult.  It will give no way for a
developer of a piece of BPEL code to protect against the "modelling error"
(legacy term: "programming error") of another modeller whose attempt to
model the real world failed in a tangible instance.


Tony Fletcher wrote:
      This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of
      "received". The status will be changed to "open" if the TC accepts it
      as identifying a bug in the spec or decides it should be accepted
      specially. Otherwise it will be closed without further consideration
      (but will be marked as "Revisitable")

      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 version of the document entitled in
      the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting
      as a TC document 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 190: BPEL Internal Faults
      Status: received
      Date added: 3 Feb 2005
      Categories: Fault handling
      Date submitted: 3 February 2005
      Submitter: Dieter Koenig1
      Document: WS-BPEL Working Draft, December, 2004
      Related Issues: Issue 163 : languageExecutionFault, Issue 169 :
      Transition condition error handling clarification, and Issue 187 :
      Legality of Explicitly throwing or rethrowing Standard faults.
      There are a number of cases in the current spec where the behavior of
      a process is described as *undefined*, in particular, after
      recognizing internal errors described as standard faults.

      With the exception of "bpel:joinFailure", *all* of these situations
      represent modelling errors that cannot be dealt with by the business
      process itself in a meaningful way. This behavior becomes even more
      questionable for catchAll handlers that try to deal with multiple
      application faults and unexpectedly encounter a standard fault.

      Submitter's proposal: Instead of allowing processes to catch these as
      standard faults, we propose that the process instance must
      *terminate* immediately when such a situation is encountered.

      The behavior of terminate is well-defined in BPEL -- as far as BPEL
      is concerned the instance execution ends when terminate is
      encountered without any fault handling behavior. Any additional
      facilities for extended support for, e.g., repair and continue, is
      definitely out of scope.

      This approach would also create a clear direction for dealing with
      any pathological situation within an inlined language (Issue 163) and
      therefore also for errors within transition conditions (Issue 169).

      Changes: 3 Feb 2005 - new issue

      Best Regards,

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]