+1
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:]
>Sent: 16 September 2004 20:30
>To: Francisco Curbera
>Cc: Furniss, Peter;
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE: [wsbpel] appendix C revision
>
>
>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
>>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/lea
ve_workgroup.php.
