Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 180 - Proposal to Vote

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi, Satish and others,

Per discussion on TC conf call, I was reminded that 180 has actually a 
dependency on 185. I guess we should "relocate" and expand the 180 
proposal to cover 185 as well.

Hopefully, we will get a proposal to resolve both 180 and 185 together 
soon. Stay tuned ...

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu




Satish Thatte wrote:

>Friendly amendment:  and clean up any current language in 11.3 that contradicts this.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
>Sent: Wed 5/4/2005 8:18 AM
>To: wsbpeltc; Alex Yiu
>Cc: Satish Thatte
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 180 - Proposal to Vote
>
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>It looks like my suggestions are accepted by a bunch of people.
>
>Here I formally submit the propsal to vote:
>Actual Text Changes Suggestion:
>
>In Section 11.3, add the following to the end of the paragraph which
>starts with "Note that a WSDL fault is identified ... "
>
>-------------------------------------
>Even though a fault in WS-BPEL is just identified by the fault name,  it
>does NOT enforce that faults of a particular fault name can be
>associated with one fault message type. On the contrary, faults of a
>particular fault name can be associated with multiple message types and
>the <catch> construct in WS-BPEL facilitates differentiation of  faults
>with different (message) types of the same fault name.
>-------------------------------------
>
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>Regards,
>Alex Yiu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>