Issue - 279 - changes to rethrow wording

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

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "open". The TC agreed to accept the issue before it was added to the issue list.

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 - 279 - changes to rethrow wording

Status: received
Date added: 3 May 2006
Date submitted: 03 May 2006
Submitter: Diane Jordan
Description: Text in 10.11 was corrected to add normative "MUST" wording:     
> The <rethrow> activity is used in fault handlers to rethrow the fault they caught. It can be used only within a fault handler (<catch> and <catchAll>). Modifications to the fault data MUST be ignored by <rethrow>. For example, if the logic in a fault handler modifies the fault data and then call <rethrow>, the original fault data would be rethrown and not the modified fault data. Similarly if a fault is caught using the shortcut that allows message type faults with one part defined using an element to be caught by fault handlers looking for the same element type, then a <rethrow> would rethrow the original message type data  (See 12.4. FaultHandlers). 
Also text was moved to section 5.2 from 12.4, "This syntatic constraint must  be statically enforced."    Resulting in:   
> The <rethrow> activity is used to rethrow the fault that was originally caught by the immediately enclosing faultHandler. The <rethrow> activity MUST only be used within a faultHandler (i.e. <catch> and <catchAll> elements). This syntatic constraint must  be statically enforced.   

Resolution: Proposed and resolved at San Jose ftf
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 - 279 - [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 - 279 - 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).