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: Issue 190 - Adding a switch

In many processes, especially shorter lived ones, users don't want to 
require administrative intervention if a process runs into a system 
fault. They would much rather just put in a fault handler that can 
detect that a system fault has occurred, clean up any resources the 
process is using and shut the instance down.

190, as I understand it, would make the previous impossible in a 
portable way. If we pass 190 then as soon as a system fault occurs the 
process must terminate. At that point no further standard behavior is 

At a minimum we should keep the current portable behavior for the many 
scenarios where it is useful.

Potentially we could introduce a switch which could specify that if a 
system fault is thrown then the process should be terminated. The 
purpose of the switch is to let the programmer know that they don't ever 
need to worry about handling system faults in their code because their 
code will never see the system fault.

But I must admit that the utility of the switch is suspect as it depends 
for its utility on exactly what the admin will do after termination, 
something that is completely undefined in BPEL.

But in any case, we shouldn't remove the current portable behavior.


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