[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 209 - Proposal For Vote
Sorry, -1 from me. :-( Actually, the current spec behavior is consistent to my eyes. A re-wording clarification without real behavior changes should be good enough. Original Text: ------------------------------ "Invoking a compensation handler that has not been installed is equivalent to the empty activity (it is a no-op)—this ensures that fault handlers do not have to rely on state to determine which nested scopes have completed successfully." Section 14.7 states: "If an installed compensation handler is invoked more than once during the execution of a process instance, a compliant implementation MUST throw the standard bpws:repeatedCompensation fault."------------------------------ 13.3.3 is talking about the case where a compensation handler that has NOT been installed. 14.7 is talking about the case where a compensation handler that is ALREADY installed. The state used to check whether bpws:repeatedCompensation needs to be thrown is associated with the installed compensationHandler. And, <empty> "no-op" should really means no-op: that is no matter how many times it got executed, any parts of states of the process will not get affected. Therefore, I would suggest to reword two paragraphs similar to the following: NEW TEXT: ----------------------------------
"Invoking a compensation handler that has not been installed is equivalent to the empty activity (it is a no-op)—this ensures that fault handlers do not have to rely on state to determine which nested scopes have completed successfully. Invoking a not-yet-installed compensation handler multiple times are allowed and it does not have effect to the state of the process and assocated scopes." Section 14.7 states: "If an installed compensation handler is invoked more than once during the execution of a process instance, a compliant implementation MUST throw the standard bpws:repeatedCompensation fault. Note: this repeated compensation fault checking does NOT apply to the invocations of not-yet-installed compensation handlers. "---------------------------------- Regards, Alex Yiu Yaron Y. Goland wrote: Issue 209 - Inconsistent repeated compensation fault behavior |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]