Re: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Dieter, Satish,

    Perhaps we should open an issue to clarify the wording concerning this aspect of serializable scopes? I certainly read it to mean that no sub-scopes are allowed to a serialized one, and I suspect I am not alone.

-Ron

Dieter Roller wrote:

Satish,

I think we just wanted to make sure that from a serialization aspect the
scope was a leaf scope (not necessarily a real leaf scope).

Cheers,

dieter





|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Satish Thatte"  |
|         |           <satisht@microsof|
|         |           t.com>           |
|         |                            |
|         |           10/22/2003 07:49 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                             |
  |       To:       "Ron Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>                                                                                    |
  |       cc:       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                                               |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?                                                                                    |
  |                                                                                                                                             |
  |                                                                                                                                             |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



I actually cannot recall why we have banned all nested scopes inside
serializable scopes -- I will check.  The reson for banning nesting of
serializable scopes themselves is to avoid requiring any nested locking
scheme for implementing BPEL.  Loosening the leaf restriction doesn't seem
to help though since the fault would presumably occur upon exiting the
serializable scope and therefore would be handled in one of its fault
handlers, which we already allow.  What were you thinking of proposing
there?

By custom code I meant fault handlers that would somehow (no idea how) cope
using business process logic.

________________________________

From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wed 10/22/2003 7:16 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Serializable Scopes Issues?



Ron Ten-Hove wrote:

  

Satish Thatte wrote:

    

What did you have in mind for the handling of concurrency faults?
Retry?  Failure?  Some custom code?

      

This is really a specific case of the more general problem of fault
handling / recovery in BPEL. The language should have decent support
for this. In this case, I might follow a typical pattern: compensate
for the activities completed in the failed scope, then retry it.
Nothing fancy like custom code, as much as I admire Edwin's <exec>
tags :-).
    

Hum. Upon reflection, I think the error handling might be more difficult
than I originally thought. The fact that a serializable scope must be a
leaf scope makes structuring error handling within the scope in question
more difficult. This brings up the question: what would be the cost of
allowing nested scopes within a serializable one? Effectively it would
function as one collective serializable scope, but would make
structuring fault and compensation handling within the serializable
scope more flexible.

Also, upon further relection, what did you mean by "custom code"? Did
you mean a user-defined fault handler for concurrency faults?

-Ron





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/leave_workgroup.php
.






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/leave_workgroup.php.