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 - R47 - Reconsider resolution of issue 111

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 - R47 - Reconsider resolution of issue 111

Status: received
Date added: 23 Jan 2007
Origin: Public comment Oliver Kopp, 18 Jan 2007 (public comment list)
Date submitted: 15 Jan 2007
Submitter: Oliver Kopp
Document: WS-BPEL 2.0 second public review text
Description: While reading the spec, we found the resolution of original issue 111 was not realised exactly as it was proposed.

issue 111 : proposed following syntax:

<extensionActivity standard-attributes>
    <???? >

In contrast to that syntax, following syntax was realised:

    <???? standard-attributes>

We think that the first syntax is the right one, since there can only be one element be nested in an extensionActivity. Furthermore, we think in the first case, separation of concers is given. The ???? elements contains only construct, which have to be handled of the processor of ????. In the realized syntax, ???? contains elements which are to be interpreted by the BPEL engine and which the processor of ???? should ignore.

We have another issue with the extension activity: We think there should be a fault for the case of a failure during the execution of an extension activity. In our oppinion, this would be consistent with the existence of a subLanguageExecutionFault.
Changes: 23 Jan 2007 - 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 - R47 - [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 - R47 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document

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