OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Issue - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements to descriptions in section 5.2

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 - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements to descriptions in section 5.2

Status: received
Date added: 3 May 2006
Categories: Static Analysis
Date submitted: 03 May 2006
Submitter: Simon D Moser
Description: During the San Jose F2F, we encountered a duplicate normative statement in Section 12.4 - italicised below
A WS-BPEL process is allowed to rethrow the original fault caught by the nearest enclosing fault handler with a <rethrow> activity. A <rethrow> activity is allowed to be used within any fault handler and only within a fault handler. This syntactic constraint MUST be statically enforced. Here are some scenario that worth some elaboration:

The first sentence is a straight repetition from section 5.2 where the second sentence adds some normative meaning that is NOT covered in 5.2. On a vote it was decided that we move the italicised sentence to 5.2 and fix up 12.4 appropriately. However, the point of this issue is that there are more cases like that throughout the spec. Therefore, we should add (or move) the sentence "This syntactic constraint MUST be statically enforced" to all other applicable places in section 5.2
Resolution: This issue was opened and approved during the San Jose face to face.
Changes: 3 May 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 - 278 - [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 - 278 - 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).

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]