[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote
Hi Dieter, Ok, here are the two sets of text. If we adopt your text it didn't seem to flow right unless it replaces the entire part after the ellipsis, what do you think. Is it explicit enough? - Chris End of section 13.3.3 Dieter's suggestion: "...User defined fault, compensation, or termination handlers may use <compensate scope="..."> to compensate a specific child scope and/or <compensate/> to compensate all child scopes in default order. Any repeated attempt to compensate an individual child scope is treated as a no-op. The compensate activity should be used by user defined fault, compensation and termination handlers to invoke child scope compensation. If a user defined fault, compensation or termination handler does not use the compensate activity then child scopes will not be compensated." Alex's suggestion: "...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault, compensation or termination handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S. The use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified behavior including the explicit invocation of <compensate scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx nested directly within S. After an explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S, the default-order compensation is still available via the <compensate/> activity. During the default-order compensation, any attempt to compensate a scope which has already been explicity compensated is a no-op. On the other hand, if a <compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op. The compensate activity should be used by user defined fault, compensation and termination handlers to invoke child scope compensation. If a user defined fault, compensation or termination handler does not use the compensate activity then child scopes will not be compensated." -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:22 PM To: chris.keller@active-endpoints.com Cc: alex.yiu@oracle.com; 'ws bpel tc' Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote Yes, this is what I had in mind ... Kind Regards DK "Chris Keller" <chris.keller@act ive-endpoints.com To > Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, <alex.yiu@oracle.com> 15.12.2005 19:08 cc "'ws bpel tc'" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Please respond to Subject chris.keller RE: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote Hi Dieter, I am not sure which text you are suggesting to replace (or add to) with this text. Is it the same text as Alex is suggesting to change? Thanks, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:36 AM To: alex.yiu@oracle.com; chris.keller@active-endpoints.com Cc: 'ws bpel tc' Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote +1 Here is one more ...: User-defined fault handlers, compensation handlers, or termination handlers may use <compensate scope="..."> to compensate a specific child scope and/or <compensate/> to compensate all child scopes in default order. Any repeated attempt to compensate an individual child scope is treated as a no-op. Kind Regards DK Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle. com> To chris.keller@active-endpoints.com 14.12.2005 22:00 cc "'ws bpel tc'" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>, Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com> Subject Re: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote Hi Chris, Thank you again for sending the proposal out. I am for general direction of this proposal. "Explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S effectively removes the scope from the default-order compensation, but the remainder of the compensation order is preserved. If a <compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op" Technically, what your text describe is consistent with my understanding and preference. However the wording of "effectively removes" make me worry this text gives people an impression that the default-order compensation is mutable upon <compensate scope="Sx" />. In fact, we have no mechanism to change the default-order. Thinking out loud here ... how about: "After any explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S, the default-order compensation is still available via <compensate/> activity. During the default-order compensation, any attempt to compensate a scope which has been already explicity compensated is a no-op. On the other hand, if a <compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op" I guess it will have less room of misunderstanding. What do you think? Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Chris Keller wrote: Issue 229 Proposal Summary: Allow <compensate/> after <compensate scope="Sx"/> and emphasize that user defined fault and compensation handlers must explicitly call compensate for child scope compensation to occur. Changes to current specification -------------------------------- Section 13.3.3 "...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or compensation handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S. The use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified behavior except the explicit invocation of <compensate scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx nested directly within S. Explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S disables the availability of default-order compensation, as expected." Change to: "...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or compensation handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S. The use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified behavior including the explicit invocation of <compensate scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx nested directly within S. Explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S effectively removes the scope from the default-order compensation, but the remainder of the compensation order is preserved. If a <compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op. The compensate activity MUST be used by user defined fault handlers and compensation handlers for child scope compensation to be called. If a user defined fault handler or compensation handler does not use the compensate activity child scopes will not be compensated." Section 14.6 --- Remove this section as it is not applicable per issue 209 resolution --- Appendix A - --- Remove repeatedCompensation fault as it is not applicable per issue 209 resolution --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]