[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 236 - Clarification on CorrelationViolation for Outbound Messages
Yes, that is intentional. Please reference resolution of issue 222:
‘instruct the editors to amend the spec to state that a message cannot be received if it does not match the stated correlation sets, except for the case where the an <invoke> is on a request/reply operation, and the *reply* fails to match the correlation. In this case, the reply *is* delivered to the process, and correlationViolation is thrown.’
Regarding your comment on what ‘BPEL fault thrown’ means, I agree it is ambiguous right now. However as it relates to all ‘BPEL system faults’, maybe we should raise this as a separate issue? Makes sense?
From: Eckenfels. Bernd
Well actually yes the issue is about somthing else, however the change to the appendix looks misleading to me, since it suggests that in the 2-way-invoke case a response will be received even if a violation is thrown. Or is this intentional?
And also we had a discussion what "fault thrown" means, and we should state if or if not we want to say anything about the partner, maybe "if the binding allows responses/aknowledgement to response-messages, then the BPEL system faul may/may not be dispatched to the partner"
Anyway, I think this is another viewpoint here:
Thrown when the contents of the messages that are processed in an invoke, receive, or reply activity do not match specified correlation information. If the fault is in the context of an inbound message, then the message MUST not be received by the process, the invoke or receive throws a fault to the BPEL process. If the fault is in the context of an outbound message, then the message MUST NOT be dispatched OUT by the process.
Alexandre Alves [mailto:email@example.com]
Thanks for the feedback!
Maybe I was not clear enough or I am miss-understanding you, but this issue (236) is related to the outbound messages only and not at all to the incoming reply (‘in’-constraint) of a request-reply invoke.
What might be confusing is that as part of spec text for this issue, I wanted to update the appendix definition of a correlationViolation fault and I noticed that as it was it did not completely reflect the latest change to section 14.3 regarding the incoming reply of a request-reply invoke, thus I also moved over this explanation to the appendix.
In another words, the phrase ‘If the fault is in the context of an inbound message, then the message MUST not be received by the process, except in the case of an invoke activity with a request/reply operation.’ is meant to just reflect what currently _already_ is specified in section 14.3.
Would it help if I change the proposed text to:
Thrown when the contents of the messages that are processed in an invoke, receive, or reply activity do not match specified correlation information. If the fault is in the context of an inbound message, then the message MUST not be received by the process, except in the case of an invoke activity with a request/reply operation. If the fault is in the context of an outbound message, then the message MUST NOT be dispatched OUT by the process.
From: Eckenfels. Bernd
just a minor note, i think we had this already, but since we want to change the wording here: if a reply is received on a two way invoke, and the reply violates the correlation, then the message will not be dispatched (this issue) and a correlation violation will be thrown by the invoke - however, it is not required (but possible?) to be also send to the web service who originated the response?
I also think the below proposed changes to the appendix are not correct, or do you really want to receive the reply if it violates the "in"-constraint?
ws-bpel issues list editor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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 - 236 - Clarification on CorrelationViolation for Outbound Messages
does not clarify what happens when a invoke activity fails with
bpws:correlationViolation fault for the out message (i.e. pattern out or
out-in). Is the request actually send out or not?
In the case of the correlationViolation failure for the outbound message, the message is not dispatched out.
- In section 14.3 Correlation, replace the paragraph:
- In Appendix A. Standard Faults, replace the paragraph:
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the email@example.com list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 236 - [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 - 236 - 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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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