I don't suppose that the assembled could be convinced that since
appendix C is non-normative and since the group already has a ton of
text to do full reviews on perhaps we could publish appendix C
separately? This would be one less thing for the entire group to have to
review in order to get out the main spec. Since the text is anyway
non-normative what real damage is done if it is published stand alone?
Just a thought,
Yaron
Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Here is IBM's feedback on your proposed resolution.
>
> We agree that Appendix C provides important value in helping clarify the
> interaction between BPEL and distributed protocols. That was the original
> motivation for the appendix; in its current form (modulo references to the
> WS-BA spec) it does this job appropriately and that is why we agreed that
> it should not be removed. Our major concern with the proposed changes is
> that the new text only deals with localized behavior and does not help
> anymore in interoperability scenarios. In that case we think it would be
> better to leave it out of the document.
>
> More specifically, these are the two issues that concern us:
>
> 1. Missing fault and compensation-fault acknowledgements: The state
> diagrams are meant to accommodate any underlying infrastructure and
> therefore we believe that every transition requires some form of
> protocol-level acknowledgement to assure the partner has processed the
> signal.
>
> 2. Exit Handling: We need to allow a nested scope to unilaterally leave the
> workscope.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Furniss,
> Peter"
>
>
> <Peter.Furniss@chor To: "Satish
> Thatte" <>, <>
>
> eology.com>
> cc:
>
>
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel]
> Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>
> 08/25/2004 02:04
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds reasonable - "Success" should be changed to "Succeeded" by the same
> count.
>
> Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: 25 August 2004 18:15
> To: Furniss, Peter;
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>
> Peter,
>
> It would be helpful to follow the original convention of ending all signals
> from a nested scope with ‘ed – by this convention “Fault” would be
> “faulted”. Thus all these signals look informative as opposed to
> imperative.
>
> Satish
>
>
> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:19 AM
> To:
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>
> Forgot to set the title so my own scripts will link the thread. Please
> reply to this thread, not my original one.
>
> Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furniss, Peter
> Sent: 18 August 2004 14:57
> To:
> Subject: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
> At last, the proposed text for appendix C from Alastair and myself.
> Thanks also to Tony Fletcher for comments.
>
> The bit that gave us pause was the introduction - the difference between a
> notionally monolithic BPEL implementation and a general distributed case
> becomes questionable if in fact the BPEL implementation is federated -
> especially when, e.g., different flows are running in separate processes
> that could fail independently.
>
> Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Peter Furniss
> Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
> web: http://www.choreology.com
> email:
> phone: +44 870 739 0066
> mobile: +44 7951 536168
>
