[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)
Hi Satish, I guess one of the differences we are still having is: Whether "convert-an-exist-to-a-fault-and-proceed" is one of the supported normative behavior. To me, Issue 190 should be more about adding choices on how a BPEL implementation reacts to a BPEL Standard fault/failure, NOT changing / disallowing existing behavior:
The key point is: the spec should provide a reasonably backward-compatible path / choice for existing BPEL 1.1 style process to migrate to BPEL 2.0 for this such a high impact issue, if those process definition happens to allow compensation after certain BPEL standard fault. (We are not just talking about minor keyword and syntax renaming.) If we drop item (1) from the spec, then there will be no spec / standard way to continue BPEL 1.1 behavior, which can be very useful in a number of cases. That is why the tone of the issue description needs to be clearly spelled out in writing, before we proceed with "is-this-a-bug" vote. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Satish Thatte wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]