[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)
Chris, How would changing catchAll behavior cause the same effect as exitOnStandardFault? If catchAll doesn't catch standard fault such faults would simply unravel the entire instance including default compensation, rather than freezing the instance so one can (using private means) fix and continue. Satish ________________________________ From: Chris Keller [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thu 2/17/2005 7:45 PM To: 'Dieter Koenig1'; firstname.lastname@example.org 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 java). <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 faults. - Chris -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:52 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 190 - BPEL Internal Faults (New Proposed Issue Announcement) 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 below). Kind Regards DK 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 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup. php. To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.