Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 25 - Consistent enablement of compensation handlers

Assaf Arkin wrote:

> Personally, I would rather see that as being a property of the service 
> interface or the endpoint. That way, I can use a service that does not 
> necessarily have a BPEL associated with it and determine whether it 
> supports compensation at design time or run-time. A coordination 
> protocol can provide a feature or policy that can be used to that 
> effect. But if the only case where you want to determine/control is 
> when using BPEL, then it makes sense that this feature is part of the 
> BPEL language.
>
> Do you think there's a case for services that do not have an 
> associated BPEL abstract, but still want to expose/control that aspect 
> of their behavior?

mm1: Assaf, wouldn't the function be more flexible and extensible in the 
long term if BPEL may or may not be in control.  Clearly with a 
coordination framework (or when context is applied), that may not be 
true.  Thanks.