Issue - 260 - Confusing pargraph describing on suppressJoinFailure mechanism

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk>]

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 - 260 - Confusing pargraph describing on suppressJoinFailure mechanism

Status: received
Date added: 7 Apr 2006
Categories: Joining
Date submitted: 07 April 2006
Submitter: Alex Yiu
Description: During the review of Chapter 11, Danny and I have share some similar concerns about the paragraph below.

> Note that the name of the scope created to suppress the bpel:joinFailure fault that immediately encloses an activity with a join condition is exactly the same as the name of the activity itself. In case this is an invoke activity (see 10.3. Invoking Web Service OperationsInvoking Web Service Operations) with an inlined fault or compensationHandler, join failure suppression is applied to the implied scope of the <invoke> activity; i.e. effectively two scopes are implied: an outer scope containing an empty faultHandler for the bpel:joinFailure fault and an inner scope containing the links, faultHandlers, and compensationHandlers of the original <invoke> activity. Identical rules apply to <scope> activities: a <scope> with join failure suppression enabled implies an additional surrounding scope..

The paragraph seems to imply that the scope created to suppress joinFailure is not that virtual, but quite user visible. It goes out of its way to explain there is a name for that created scope. And, there are two level of scopes.

Also, the description also said the inner scope is for the inlined fault handler and compensation handler. First of all, <invoke> can only have an inline CH, not an inline FH. And, the example does not have an inline CH per see.

They are quite confusing and misleading to some readers.
Submitter's proposal: All in all, I would suggest to remove that paragraph . If we want to retain that paragraph, we need some major rewording there.

Also, in a paragraph occurring in the Chapter earlier: "Suppressing the bpel:joinFailure fault is equivalent/similar to surrounding each affected activity with a <scope> activity that defines an "empty" faultHandler for the bpel:joinFailure fault.", we should also stress the scope is a virtual scope and exists only for purpose of suppressing joinFailure and has no other usage / impact (e.g. no effect on compensation).
Changes: 7 Apr 2006 - 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 - 260 - [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 - 260 - 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).