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 Issue Announcement)

Hi Dieter,

I think the scope of the proposed attribute is not right.  Instead of this
process level attribute perhaps we could add a flag to the catchAll (imo the
primary culprit for catching these faults when you don't want or expect to),
which allows the user to specify that it shouldn't catch standard faults
(similar to the difference between catching Throwable vs. Exception in

<catchAll includeStandardFaults="yes|no"/> 

The default could still be no. In many ways this ends up being the same as
the proposal since the behavior would be implicit fault handling which is
terminate. This option gives users more fine grained control of their fault
handling.  It also opens up the ability for engines to have interesting
options like suspend on uncaught standard faults.  Certainly that is out of
the scope of this specification, but could be a nice option as opposed to
saying the default is that an engine MUST terminate a process on standard

- Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:52 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue

I would like to modify my original Submitter's proposal for 190 by adding a
suggestion for an explicit process/scope attribute (see the last paragraph
Kind Regards

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).

In order to support the behavior suggested here and also allow process
modelers to continue using the current behavior, an explicit boolean
attribute can be added to the <process> and <scope> elements:
   <process/scope ... exitOnStandardFault="yes|no" ...>
where the default is "yes".

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to

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