Issue - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements to descriptions in section 5.2

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received".
The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that
motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without
further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the 
OASIS WSBPEL TC pages
on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of 
the document entitled  in the 
"Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list
- the next posting as a TC document will include this issue.
The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at 
this constant URL.

Issue - 278 - Add "Enforce Statically" statements to descriptions in section 5.2
Status: received

Date added: 3 May 2006

Categories: Static Analysis

Date submitted: 03 May 2006

Submitter: Simon D Moser

Description: During the San Jose F2F, we encountered a duplicate normative statement in Section 12.4 - italicised below

A WS-BPEL process is allowed to rethrow the original fault caught by the nearest enclosing fault handler with a <rethrow> activity. A <rethrow> activity is allowed to be used within any fault handler and only within a fault handler.  This syntactic constraint MUST be statically enforced. Here are some scenario that worth some elaboration:

The first sentence is a straight repetition from section 5.2 where the second sentence adds some normative meaning that is NOT covered in 5.2. On a vote it was decided that we move the italicised sentence to 5.2 and fix up
12.4 appropriately. However, the point of this issue is that there are more cases like that throughout the spec.  Therefore, we should add (or move) the sentence "This syntactic constraint MUST be statically enforced" to all other applicable places in section 5.2

Resolution: This issue was opened and approved during the San Jose face to face. 

Changes: 3 May 2006 - new issue

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the 
 list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure
the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 278 - [anything]" or is a reply
to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line 
"Issue - 278 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, 
see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).