??
The forcedTermination fault handler was able to do compensation. Why is
this a change?
No, the fact that the process does not have a termination handler is
deliberate since we do not have a notion of forced termination of a
process instance. I deliberately moved <terminate/> to <exit/> to make
that clear.
This proposal actually changes absolutely nothing semantically. It
simply changes syntax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:31 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 135 - Proposal to vote
i don't like the idea of the default termination handler performing
compensation. this part is an addition, rather than a syntactic
substitution, and i think it falls on the wrong side of the meaning of
default.
also, i assume that the fact that a process doesn't have a termination
handler is an inadvertent omission?
danny
Satish Thatte wrote:
