Is that legal? That is, if a reply has been 'started' but doesn't 'complete' due to a fault then is an attempt to complete the reply later by another reply activity an invalidReply? The current language around messageExchange would certainly make it seem so.
If it is legal and the system decides not to send a second reply (e.g.
the program, upon receiving the fault, just gives up on that message
exchange and lets it time out) then must a missingReply fault be sent
out since the reply still could be completed?
Submitter�s proposal: It seems somewhat futile to allow people to catch the fault but not do
the obvious thing with it, which is successfully complete the reply by
sending an error message of some sort to the partner. At the same time,
those choosing not to finish off the reply after a fault shouldn't now
have to deal with a second missingReply fault. I suspect we need
language that says something along the lines of 'yes you MAY try a
second reply (no promises it will work, depending on the fault that was
thrown) but the missingReply fault MUST NOT be thrown for replies that
have already faulted for other reasons.'
Changes: 19 Jul 2005 - new issue
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 223 - [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 - 223 - 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).
Choreology Anti virus scan completed
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]