Hi Dieter,
Ok, here are the two sets of text. If we adopt your text it didn't seem to
flow right unless it replaces the entire part after the ellipsis, what do
you think. Is it explicit enough?
- Chris
End of section 13.3.3
Dieter's suggestion:
"...User defined fault, compensation, or termination handlers may use
<compensate scope="..."> to compensate a specific child scope and/or
<compensate/> to compensate all child scopes in default order. Any repeated
attempt to compensate an individual child scope is treated as a no-op.
The compensate activity should be used by user defined fault, compensation
and termination handlers to invoke child scope compensation. If a user
defined fault, compensation or termination handler does not use the
compensate activity then child scopes will not be compensated."
Alex's suggestion:
"...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault, compensation or
termination handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation
of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S. The
use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified behavior
including the explicit invocation of <compensate scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx
nested directly within S. After an explicit invocation of compensation for
such a scope nested within S, the default-order compensation is still
available via the <compensate/> activity. During the default-order
compensation, any attempt to compensate a scope which has already been
explicity compensated is a no-op. On the other hand, if a <compensate/> is
used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op.
The compensate activity should be used by user defined fault, compensation
and termination handlers to invoke child scope compensation. If a user
defined fault, compensation or termination handler does not use the
compensate activity then child scopes will not be compensated."
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:22 PM
To:
Cc: ; 'ws bpel tc'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote
Yes, this is what I had in mind ...
Kind Regards
DK
"Chris Keller"
<chris.keller@act
ive-endpoints.com To
> Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE,
<>
15.12.2005 19:08 cc
"'ws bpel tc'"
<>
Please respond to Subject
chris.keller RE: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal
for vote
Hi Dieter,
I am not sure which text you are suggesting to replace (or add to) with
this
text. Is it the same text as Alex is suggesting to change?
Thanks,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:36 AM
To: ;
Cc: 'ws bpel tc'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal for vote
+1
Here is one more ...:
User-defined fault handlers, compensation handlers, or termination handlers
may use <compensate scope="..."> to compensate a specific child scope
and/or <compensate/> to compensate all child scopes in default order. Any
repeated attempt to compensate an individual child scope is treated as a
no-op.
Kind Regards
DK
Alex Yiu
<alex.yiu@oracle.
com> To
14.12.2005 22:00 cc
"'ws bpel tc'"
<>, Alex
Yiu <>
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue 229 - Proposal
for vote
Hi Chris,
Thank you again for sending the proposal out.
I am for general direction of this proposal.
"Explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S
effectively removes the scope from the default-order compensation, but the
remainder of the compensation order is preserved. If a <compensate/> is
used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op"
Technically, what your text describe is consistent with my understanding
and preference.
However the wording of "effectively removes" make me worry this text gives
people an impression that the default-order compensation is mutable upon
<compensate scope="Sx" />. In fact, we have no mechanism to change the
default-order.
Thinking out loud here ... how about:
"After any explicit invocation of compensation for such a scope nested
within S, the default-order compensation is still available via
<compensate/> activity. During the default-order compensation, any attempt
to compensate a scope which has been already explicity compensated is a
no-op. On the other hand, if a <compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate
scope="Sx"/> the latter is treated as a no-op"
I guess it will have less room of misunderstanding.
What do you think?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Chris Keller wrote:
Issue 229
Proposal Summary: Allow <compensate/> after <compensate scope="Sx"/>
and emphasize that user defined fault and compensation handlers must
explicitly call compensate for child scope compensation to occur.
Changes to current specification
--------------------------------
Section 13.3.3
"...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or compensation
handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of
compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S.
The use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified
behavior except the explicit invocation of <compensate scope="Sx"/>
for scope Sx nested directly within S. Explicit invocation of
compensation for such a scope nested within S disables the
availability of default-order compensation, as expected."
Change to:
"...Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or compensation
handler attached to scope S causes the default-order invocation of
compensation handlers for completed scopes directly nested within S.
The use of this activity can be mixed with any other user-specified
behavior including the explicit invocation of <compensate
scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx nested directly within S. Explicit
invocation of compensation for such a scope nested within S
effectively removes the scope from the default-order compensation,
but the remainder of the compensation order is preserved. If a
<compensate/> is used prior to a <compensate scope="Sx"/> the latter
is treated as a no-op.
The compensate activity MUST be used by user defined fault handlers
and compensation handlers for child scope compensation to be called.
If a user defined fault handler or compensation handler does not use
the compensate activity child scopes will not be compensated."
Section 14.6
--- Remove this section as it is not applicable per issue 209
resolution ---
Appendix A -
--- Remove repeatedCompensation fault as it is not applicable per
issue 209 resolution ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
