Issue - 223 - Replying to faulted Replies

[ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 223 - Replying to faulted Replies

Status: received
Date added: 19 Jul 2005
Categories: Syntax and validation
Date submitted: 18 July 2004
Submitter: Yaron Y. Goland
Description: Imagine that one has a reply which fails due to a correlation violation. 
  One can imagine having a fault handler that catches this fault and 
tries to reply to the partner with a fault message.

Is that legal? That is, if a reply has been 'started' but doesn't 'complete' due to a fault then is an attempt to complete the reply later by another reply activity an invalidReply? The current language around messageExchange would certainly make it seem so.

If it is legal and the system decides not to send a second reply (e.g. the program, upon receiving the fault, just gives up on that message exchange and lets it time out) then must a missingReply fault be sent out since the reply still could be completed?
Submitter’s proposal: It seems somewhat futile to allow people to catch the fault but not do the obvious thing with it, which is successfully complete the reply by sending an error message of some sort to the partner. At the same time, those choosing not to finish off the reply after a fault shouldn't now have to deal with a second missingReply fault. I suspect we need language that says something along the lines of 'yes you MAY try a second reply (no promises it will work, depending on the fault that was thrown) but the missingReply fault MUST NOT be thrown for replies that have already faulted for other reasons.'
Changes: 19 Jul 2005 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 223 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 223 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).

Choreology Anti virus scan completed