RE: [wsbpel] Outgoing link from a fault handler

[Dieter Koenig1 <dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com>]

We should open an issue; IMO, the wording should be changed.

Something like this ...

From:
In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary MUST be outbound,
that is, it MUST have its source activity within the fault handler and its
target activity within a scope that encloses the scope associated with the
fault handler.

Replace "within a scope that encloses" with "outside of":
In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary MUST be outbound,
that is, it MUST have its source activity within the fault handler and its
target activity outside of the scope associated with the fault handler.

Kind Regards
DK



                                                                           
             "Chris Keller"                                                
             <chris.keller@act                                             
             ive-endpoints.com                                          To 
             >                         "'Yuzo Fujishima'"                  
                                       <fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com>           
             21.10.2005 03:58                                           cc 
                                       "'ws bpel tc'"                      
                                       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>       
             Please respond to                                     Subject 
               chris.keller            RE: [wsbpel] Outgoing link from a   
                                       fault handler                       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Yuzo,

Yes, your understanding is correct.  I am not sure if we need to open an
issue on the change in wording, maybe someone else can comment on whether
an
issue needs to be opened for that.

- Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:19 PM
To: chris.keller@active-endpoints.com
Cc: 'ws bpel tc'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Outgoing link from a fault handler

Chris,

Thank you for the response.

Chris Keller wrote:
> Hi Yuzo,
>
> E to H should be allowed. If the text is not clear we should change the
> sentence to:
>
>   In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary
>   MUST be outbound, that is, it MUST have its source activity
>   within the fault handler and its target activity MUST not be
>   to an activity within the fault handlers associated scope.

Now I think I get it. I like the above line much better
than the original line in the current draft.

Please help me verify my understanding.
My understanding is as follows:
  The "main part" of a scope will never be executed after
  the scope has faulted. Hence, a link from within the fault
  handler to inside the main part is senseless, and mostly
  harmful because such link is a likely source of "dead-lock",
  i.e., an activity waiting for the link status determination
  that will never be determined.

Do I get it right?

Yuzo

>
> If you think the text is not clear then it probably isn't so I think you
> should open an issue?
>
> - Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:56 AM
> To: ws bpel tc
> Subject: [wsbpel] Outgoing link from a fault handler
>
> Hi,
>
> Could someone help me understand a restriction on link?
>
> In the last paragraph of "12.6 Flow",
>   In addition, a link that crosses a fault-handler boundary
>   MUST be outbound, that is, it MUST have its source activity
>   within the fault handler and its target activity within a
>   scope that encloses the scope associated with the fault handler.
>
> What is the rationale behind the line above?
>
> Example:
>
> Scope A
>   Sequence
>     Scope B
>       Sequence
>         Scope C
>           FaultHandler D
>             Activity E
>         Activity F
>     Scope G
>       Activity H
>     Activity I
>
> As far as I understand the specification,
> Link from E:
>   to F: Allowed, because B encloses C
>   to H: Disallowed, because G does not enclose C.
>   to I: Allowed, because A encloses C, although indirectly via B.
>
> I don't quite understand why we should allow/disallow linking as above.
>
> Some may claim:
>   E to H is allowed, because it is within A, because it is WITHIN A,
>   although indirectly.
>
> One of the problems is, IMHO, the definition of "WITHIN A SCOPE" is
unclear.
>
> Yuzo Fujishima
> NEC Corporation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php