Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote - Alex Yiu - org.oasis-open.lists.wsbpel

23 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.wsbpelRe: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal v...

From	Sent On	Attachments
Dieter Koenig1	Jan 25, 2006 9:04 am
Danny van der Rijn	Jan 25, 2006 1:34 pm
Dieter Koenig1	Jan 26, 2006 1:34 am
Danny van der Rijn	Jan 30, 2006 10:09 am
Alexandre Alves	Jan 30, 2006 11:53 am
Danny van der Rijn	Jan 30, 2006 4:36 pm
Chris Keller	Jan 31, 2006 4:47 am
Danny van der Rijn	Jan 31, 2006 10:03 am
Chris Keller	Jan 31, 2006 3:57 pm
Danny van der Rijn	Jan 31, 2006 4:03 pm
Chris Keller	Jan 31, 2006 6:28 pm
Alexandre Alves	Feb 1, 2006 6:58 am
Dieter Koenig1	Feb 13, 2006 2:13 am
Danny van der Rijn	Feb 13, 2006 10:47 am
Dieter Koenig1	Feb 14, 2006 2:03 am
Danny van der Rijn	Feb 15, 2006 11:01 am
Alex Yiu	Feb 15, 2006 12:27 pm
Danny van der Rijn	Feb 15, 2006 1:25 pm
Alex Yiu	Feb 15, 2006 1:49 pm
Danny van der Rijn	Feb 15, 2006 2:07 pm
Alex Yiu	Feb 15, 2006 7:00 pm
Danny van der Rijn	Feb 15, 2006 9:28 pm
Alex Yiu	Feb 16, 2006 11:47 am

Subject:	Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote
From:	Alex Yiu (alex...@oracle.com)
Date:	Feb 15, 2006 12:27:33 pm
List:	org.oasis-open.lists.wsbpel

Hi Dieter and Danny,

I am OK with rewording in (1).

For (2), Dieter:

(2) If a fault handler has completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. The fault handler may have processed any fault, including a different bpws:missingReply. If a new bpws:missingReply is detected then it is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).

"processed"? Do you mean: "trigger" / "cause"? How about:

(2) If a fault handler has completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. The execution of fault handler may cause a new fault, including a different bpws:missingReply. If a new bpws:missingReply is detected then it is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).

Does it sound more precise?

Thanks!

Regards, Alex Yiu

Danny van der Rijn wrote:

I'm fine with your new wording.

Danny

Dieter Koenig1 wrote:

Hi Danny, I am ok with (1). In (2), the fault handler may have processed a different missingReply or any other fault; so I slightly reworded (2) - let me know if that is acceptable.

(1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope have completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it as this is still inside of the scope.Â Note that it is possible for a scope to detect missing replies for embedded scopes that failed to throw a missingReply because another fault took precedence.

When we are finished with this text, we should also create a corresponding action item for the editing team.

Kind Regards DK

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Danny van derÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RijnÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <dannyv@tibco.comÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â >Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDEÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â cc Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 13.02.2006 19:48Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [1]wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.orgÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Subject Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â vor VoteÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

I would suggest: (1) If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope haveÂ Â Â Â Â completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If one is

detectedÂ Â Â Â Â then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself can catch it asÂ Â Â Â Â thisÂ Â Â Â Â is still inside of the scope.Â Note that it is possible for a scope to detect missing repliesÂ Â Â Â Â for embedded scopes that failed to throw a missingReply because another fault took precedence.

(2) If a fault handler has completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If any missing reply other than the exact one that caused a missingReply fault to be thrown initially is detected then a bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing or rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).

Dieter Koenig1 wrote:

Â Â Â Â Â Just to make sure this one does not get lost: do we have any Â Â Â Â Â suggested Â Â Â Â Â wording for 221 different from the resolution in Â Â Â Â Â [2]http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200601/msg00074.html?

Â Â Â Â Â Kind Regards Â Â Â Â Â DKÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "Alexandre Alves"Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <aal...@bea.com> Â Â Â Â Â ToÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 01.02.2006 15:57 Â Â Â Â Â [3]<chri...@active-endpoints.com> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â , "Danny van der Â Â Â Â Â Rijn"Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <dan...@tibco.com> Â Â Â Â Â ,Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [4]<wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org> Â Â Â Â Â ccÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SubjectÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Â Â Â Â Â ProposalÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â vor Â Â Â Â Â VoteÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Hi Chris, Danny,

Â Â Â Â Â I generally agree with Danny, now that I understood his example, I Â Â Â Â Â think Â Â Â Â Â the user would find it strange that a 'throw foo' is executed, Â Â Â Â Â causing a Â Â Â Â Â 'missingReply' to be raisedâ€¦ I understand we do swallow faults, but Â Â Â Â Â missingReply in particular seems like an extreme case as it is being Â Â Â Â Â activated by a 'throw' (which terminated the scope).

Â Â Â Â Â Rgds,

Â Â Â Â Â From: Chris Keller [[5]mailto:chri...@active-endpoints.com] Â Â Â Â Â Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:32 PM Â Â Â Â Â To: 'Danny van der Rijn'; [6]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â Hi Danny,

Â Â Â Â Â I think at the parent scope point the fault should and would have Â Â Â Â Â been Â Â Â Â Â swallowed.Â So given an option of having a parent throw the Â Â Â Â Â missingReply, Â Â Â Â Â after handling some other fault, Iâ€™d leave things as they are.Â Of Â Â Â Â Â course Â Â Â Â Â that is just my opinion.Â Iâ€™m am still open to my other stated Â Â Â Â Â options if Â Â Â Â Â you or others care to consider them J.

Â Â Â Â Â - Chris

Â Â Â Â Â From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dan...@tibco.com] Â Â Â Â Â Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:03 PM Â Â Â Â Â To: [7]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â But now you're losing the other fault, which can't ever be Â Â Â Â Â "regenerated" Â Â Â Â Â like a missingReply can.Â This isn't what I was suggesting.Â I was Â Â Â Â Â suggesting that we leave Dieter's semantic alone for when a different Â Â Â Â Â fault Â Â Â Â Â is thrown (i.e. it takes precedence).Â I was merely pointing out that Â Â Â Â Â there's still a missingReply, and it can be detected later.

Â Â Â Â Â Chris Keller wrote: Â Â Â Â Â Hi Danny,

Â Â Â Â Â I think I would prefer a wording more like â€œif a fault handler Â Â Â Â Â completes Â Â Â Â Â normally or abnormally (i.e. itself faults, throws or rethrows) a Â Â Â Â Â missingReply is thrown if an open IMA is present.Â This happens Â Â Â Â Â regardless Â Â Â Â Â of whether there was an attempt to throw or rethrow another faultâ€. Â Â Â Â Â I Â Â Â Â Â think we can make this happen by describing the scope state diagram Â Â Â Â Â in such Â Â Â Â Â a way that the check for the open IMA happens before the throw or Â Â Â Â Â rethrow Â Â Â Â Â of any other fault.Â All this is a mouthful and needs cleaning up, Â Â Â Â Â but my Â Â Â Â Â reasoning is that it is nicer if the point of the throw is the scope Â Â Â Â Â causing the missingReply under all circumstances.Â One use case that Â Â Â Â Â comes Â Â Â Â Â to mind is exception handling procedures that allow manual Â Â Â Â Â intervention, Â Â Â Â Â something that is outside the scope of the spec, but could be a Â Â Â Â Â useful Â Â Â Â Â feature of a product.

Â Â Â Â Â - Chris

Â Â Â Â Â From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dan...@tibco.com] Â Â Â Â Â Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:04 PM Â Â Â Â Â To: [8]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â Chris -

Â Â Â Â Â I see missingReply as somewhat of a special case because it isn't Â Â Â Â Â triggered Â Â Â Â Â anywhere near any web service activity, yet it's a web-service Â Â Â Â Â fault.Â I Â Â Â Â Â understand that there's no fault stack, yet on the other hand, this Â Â Â Â Â fault Â Â Â Â Â is triggered by a stack unwind of sorts, when something on the Â Â Â Â Â lexical Â Â Â Â Â stack goes out of scope.Â All that would have to be done is a small Â Â Â Â Â wording Â Â Â Â Â change to achieve the behavior I'm talking about.Â Saying that when a Â Â Â Â Â scope Â Â Â Â Â completes, a missingReply is thrown if an open IMA is contained Â Â Â Â Â within Â Â Â Â Â whose partnerLink or messageExchange definition is contained in the Â Â Â Â Â scope Â Â Â Â Â *or a scope that is nested within*

Â Â Â Â Â Danny

Â Â Â Â Â Chris Keller wrote: Â Â Â Â Â Hi Danny,

Â Â Â Â Â Although what has been proposed may not be perfect it is consistent Â Â Â Â Â with Â Â Â Â Â BPEL fault behavior in general.Â BPEL doesnâ€™t maintain a stack of Â Â Â Â Â faults, Â Â Â Â Â so if more than one fault is generated at any given point then only Â Â Â Â Â one Â Â Â Â Â fault is propagated to the fault handling.Â However the point you Â Â Â Â Â bring up Â Â Â Â Â is a good one.Â In that if you have a standard fault queued at the Â Â Â Â Â same Â Â Â Â Â time as a user defined fault, should we choose the standard fault in Â Â Â Â Â preference to the user defined fault?Â This may be logical given that Â Â Â Â Â the Â Â Â Â Â standard fault when using the exit option is much more severe and Â Â Â Â Â typically Â Â Â Â Â standard faults are not easily recoverable from as they are modeling Â Â Â Â Â errors.Â If we applied that prioritization to your example then Scope Â Â Â Â Â B Â Â Â Â Â would throw missingReply in preference to bar.Â It would have no Â Â Â Â Â effect on Â Â Â Â Â fault foo as the scope is still active during that processing.Â Â Any Â Â Â Â Â thoughts on this treatment?Â Alternatively we could specifically call Â Â Â Â Â out Â Â Â Â Â missingReply and have it be thrown in preference to another fault Â Â Â Â Â when Â Â Â Â Â completing a fault handler.Â - Chris

Â Â Â Â Â From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dan...@tibco.com] Â Â Â Â Â Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:35 PM Â Â Â Â Â To: Alexandre Alves Â Â Â Â Â Cc: [9]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â Alexandre -

Â Â Â Â Â I see you're interpreting things differently than I am.Â I can see Â Â Â Â Â both Â Â Â Â Â interpretations.

Â Â Â Â Â You interpret that missingReply is "thrown and lost".Â I interpret Â Â Â Â Â that it Â Â Â Â Â was never thrown.Â "The throwing was lost."

Â Â Â Â Â In any case, I would point out that to any external observer, (like Â Â Â Â Â the one Â Â Â Â Â who opened the IMA), no reply of any kind has happened, so the IMA is Â Â Â Â Â still Â Â Â Â Â open.

Â Â Â Â Â As far as the process goes, the activity's scope may be lost, which Â Â Â Â Â brings Â Â Â Â Â up interesting issues, but nevertheless, the activity has never been Â Â Â Â Â replied to.

Â Â Â Â Â Danny

Â Â Â Â Â Alexandre Alves wrote: Â Â Â Â Â Hi Danny,

Â Â Â Â Â You seem to bring up an important point, but I am having problems Â Â Â Â Â understanding your example.

Â Â Â Â Â When scope B completes (with fault foo), then the IMA goes out of Â Â Â Â Â scope and Â Â Â Â Â hence a missing reply fault is thrown and lost. Why would the IMA Â Â Â Â Â still be Â Â Â Â Â open in scope A? When the (first) missing reply is raised it Â Â Â Â Â signifies the Â Â Â Â Â closing of the IMAâ€¦ What did I miss from your example?

Â Â Â Â Â Rgds

Â Â Â Â Â From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dan...@tibco.com] Â Â Â Â Â Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:10 AM Â Â Â Â Â To: [10]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Proposal vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â I don't think that your intention for (2) is clear in the language.

Â Â Â Â Â Something along the lines of:

Â Â Â Â Â (2) If a fault handler has completed then a check Â Â Â Â Â for missing replies MUST be made. If any missing reply other than the Â Â Â Â Â exact Â Â Â Â Â one that Â Â Â Â Â caused a missingReply fault to be thrown initially is detected then a Â Â Â Â Â bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to throwing Â Â Â Â Â or Â Â Â Â Â rethrowing other faults from a fault handler).

Â Â Â Â Â As for (1), I am troubled that a fault that is serious enough to exit Â Â Â Â Â the Â Â Â Â Â engine could be lost so easily.Â But let's deal with a specific case:

Â Â Â Â Â Scope AÂ Â Â catch barÂ Â Â Â Â Â emptyÂ Â Â Scope BÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â catch Â Â Â Â Â fooÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â throw barÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â sequenceÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â receive (create Â Â Â Â Â open IMA)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â throw foo

Â Â Â Â Â Scope B receives a message, creating an open IMA, and then throws Â Â Â Â Â foo.Â Its Â Â Â Â Â fault handler catches foo, and throws bar, thus losing the Â Â Â Â Â missingReply Â Â Â Â Â fault.Â Scope A catches bar, and suppresses it.Â When "catch bar" Â Â Â Â Â completes, the IMA is still open.Â Does Scope A throw a Â Â Â Â Â missingReply?Â Or Â Â Â Â Â is the fact that B ":lost" it mean that it's lost forever?Â I would Â Â Â Â Â vote Â Â Â Â Â for the former (A throwing), but the text isn't clear to me as to Â Â Â Â Â what Â Â Â Â Â happens.

Â Â Â Â Â Danny

Â Â Â Â Â Dieter Koenig1 wrote: Â Â Â Â Â If more than one fault is thrown then only one is handled by a fault Â Â Â Â Â handler, either in the same or in an enclosing scope. All other Â Â Â Â Â faults are Â Â Â Â Â lost. This rule applies to bpws:missingReply as well.

Â Â Â Â Â In (2), the check allows to throw bpws:missingReply to an enclosing Â Â Â Â Â scope Â Â Â Â Â after a different fault has been handled in the scope that completes Â Â Â Â Â unsuccessfully. The "different fault" may be a different "instance" Â Â Â Â Â of a Â Â Â Â Â bpws:missingReply fault as well.

Â Â Â Â Â Do you still see an issue w.r.t this behavior, or can you suggest Â Â Â Â Â better Â Â Â Â Â language for 221 that would not trouble you :-) ?

Â Â Â Â Â Kind Regards Â Â Â Â Â DKÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Danny van derÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RijnÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â < Â Â Â Â Â [11]dan...@tibco.com Â Â Â Â Â ToÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â >Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [12]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org Â Â Â Â Â ccÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 25.01.2006 Â Â Â Â Â 22:35Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SubjectÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 221 - Â Â Â Â Â ProposalÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â vor Vote

Â Â Â Â Â I had sent this question to the irc during the meeting before I had Â Â Â Â Â to Â Â Â Â Â go.Â Don't know if it got discussed or not.

Â Â Â Â Â point (2) - why is this only "(for a different fault)"?

Â Â Â Â Â more specifically:

Â Â Â Â Â - if there is more than one IMA that caused the fault to be thrown, Â Â Â Â Â and Â Â Â Â Â there is still at least one open (but less than before) at the end of Â Â Â Â Â the <catch missingReply>, what happens? Â Â Â Â Â - if the <catch missingReply> opens a new IMA that it doesn't close Â Â Â Â Â before it's done, what happens?

Â Â Â Â Â the inconsistent nature of dealing with these, especially since they Â Â Â Â Â can Â Â Â Â Â exitOnStandardFault, truly troubles me.

Â Â Â Â Â Danny

Â Â Â Â Â Dieter Koenig1 wrote:Â Â Â Â Â Two additional changes to the 221 Â Â Â Â Â resolution (friendly amendments):Â Â Â Â Â (A) First sentence: Drop Â Â Â Â Â "during termination of a scope, "Â Â Â Â Â (B) Appendix A (missingReply Â Â Â Â Â standard fault):Â Â Â Â Â Result:Â Â Â Â Â (A) Add to the end of 14.4: Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â The standard fault bpws:missingReply can also be Â Â Â Â Â detected if one orÂ Â Â Â Â moreÂ Â Â Â Â receive operations using a partner Â Â Â Â Â link or message exchange definedÂ Â Â Â Â in

Â Â Â Â Â theÂ Â Â Â Â scope remain open.Â Â Â Â Â (1) If the contained activity and Â Â Â Â Â the event handlers of the scopeÂ Â Â Â Â haveÂ Â Â Â Â completed then a check Â Â Â Â Â for missing replies MUST be made. If one is

Â Â Â Â Â detectedÂ Â Â Â Â then a bpws:missingReply is thrown. The scope itself Â Â Â Â Â can catch it asÂ Â Â Â Â thisÂ Â Â Â Â is still inside of the scope.Â Â Â Â Â (2) Â Â Â Â Â If a fault handler (for a different fault) has completed then a Â Â Â Â Â checkÂ Â Â Â Â for missing replies MUST be made. If one is detected then Â Â Â Â Â aÂ Â Â Â Â bpws:missingReply is thrown to the parent scope (similar to Â Â Â Â Â throwingÂ Â Â Â Â orÂ Â Â Â Â rethrowing other faults from a fault Â Â Â Â Â handler).Â Â Â Â Â (3) If a fault handler itself throws or rethrows a Â Â Â Â Â different fault toÂ Â Â Â Â theÂ Â Â Â Â parent scope then no check for Â Â Â Â Â missing replies is made, so aÂ Â Â Â Â bpws:missingReply is potentially Â Â Â Â Â lost (similar to a case whereÂ Â Â Â Â multipleÂ Â Â Â Â faults have been Â Â Â Â Â detected and only one gets propagated).Â Â Â Â Â (4) If the termination Â Â Â Â Â handler is executed then no check for missingÂ Â Â Â Â replies is made, Â Â Â Â Â so a bpws:missingReply is potentially lost (like any

Â Â Â Â Â otherÂ Â Â Â Â fault thrown in the termination handler). Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â (B) Change Appendix A (missingReply standard fault) Â Â Â Â Â from:Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â Thrown when a receive has been executed, Â Â Â Â Â andÂ the process instance

Â Â Â Â Â reachesÂ Â Â Â Â the end of its execution without a corresponding reply Â Â Â Â Â having beenÂ Â Â Â Â executed.Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â To:Â Â Â Â Â -------- Â Â Â Â Â Thrown when a receive has been executed, and the process instance Â Â Â Â Â orÂ Â Â Â Â aÂ Â Â Â Â scope reaches the end of its execution without a Â Â Â Â Â corresponding reply

Â Â Â Â Â havingÂ Â Â Â Â been executed.Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â Kind Regards Â Â Â Â Â DKÂ Â Â Â Â ----- Forwarded by Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM on 25.01.2006 Â Â Â Â Â 17:39Â Â Â Â Â -----Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dieter Â Â Â Â Â Koenig1/Germany/IÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â BM

Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â [13]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 19.01.2006 17:58

Â Â Â Â Â cc

Â Â Â Â Â SubjectÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [wsbpel] Issue - Â Â Â Â Â 221 -Â Â Â Â Â Proposal

Â Â Â Â Â vorÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â VoteÂ Â Â Â Â The last Â Â Â Â Â paragraph of section 14.4. "Web Service Operations"Â Â Â Â Â (starting

Â Â Â Â Â withÂ Â Â Â Â "The fourth extension ...") introduces the standard Â Â Â Â Â faultÂ Â Â Â Â "bpws:missingReply".Â Â Â Â Â Add the following text to the Â Â Â Â Â end of the paragraph:Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â The standard fault Â Â Â Â Â bpws:missingReply can also be detected duringÂ Â Â Â Â termination of a Â Â Â Â Â scope, if one or more receive operations using aÂ Â Â Â Â partner Â Â Â Â Â link or message exchange defined in the scope remain open.Â Â Â Â Â (1) Â Â Â Â Â If the contained activity and the event handlers of the scope Â Â Â Â Â haveÂ Â Â Â Â completed then a check for missing replies MUST be made. If Â Â Â Â Â one is

Â Â Â Â Â otherÂ Â Â Â Â fault thrown in the termination handler). Â Â Â Â Â --------Â Â Â Â Â Kind RegardsÂ Â Â Â Â DK Â Â Â Â Â ---------------------------------------------------------------------Â Â Â Â Â Â To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates this mail.Â You may a link to this group and all your Â Â Â Â Â TCsÂ Â Â Â Â in

Â Â Â Â Â OASISÂ Â Â Â Â at: Â Â Â Â Â [14]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Â Â Â Â Â --------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Â Â Â Â To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates this mail.Â You may a link to this group and all your TCs Â Â Â Â Â in Â Â Â Â Â OASIS Â Â Â Â Â at: Â Â Â Â Â [15]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Â Â Â Â Â --------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates Â Â Â Â Â this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: Â Â Â Â Â [16]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Â Â Â Â Â --------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates Â Â Â Â Â this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: Â Â Â Â Â [17]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Â Â Â Â Â --------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates Â Â Â Â Â this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: Â Â Â Â Â [18]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Â Â Â Â Â --------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Â Â Â Â To Â Â Â Â Â unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that Â Â Â Â Â generates Â Â Â Â Â this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: Â Â Â Â Â [19]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

References

Visible links 1. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 2. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200601/msg00074.html 3. mailto:chri...@active-endpoints.com 4. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 5. mailto:chri...@active-endpoints.com 6. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 7. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 8. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 9. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 10. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 11. mailto:dan...@tibco.com 12. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 13. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 14. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 15. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 16. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 17. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 18. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 19. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

	Start a set with this search
	Include this search in one of my sets
	Exclude this search from one of my sets