W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:11:48 -0700
To: "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>, "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PEEBJKKCFNCENDPJDEMICEOHDDAA.martin.chapman@oracle.com>
can we please take bpel conversations like this  off this list please.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ricky Ho
  Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:06 AM
  To: Mark Little; public-ws-chor@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL


      BPEL integration with WS-Tx
      I'd like to see something like the following in BPEL

              <receive newScope="true" ....>
                      <PrepareHandler> ... </PrepareHandler>
                      <CancelHandler> ... </CancelHandler>
                      <CommitHandler> ... </CommitHandler>
                      <CompensationHandler> ... </CompensationHandler>

      Thoughts ??

    Ricky, what do you expect in your PrepareHandler, since BPEL doesn't
have a notion of preparing a transaction. Is this not a carry-over from BTP?

  My understanding of BPEL is they don't have the notion of "provisional
work".  So you do the real work and compensate it later.  Effectively, they
only have the <compensationHandler> and <cancelHandler>.  Their model is
certainly simpler but less sophisticated.  If you read by airline company
example and Assaf's solution, I think having a <prepareHandler> and
<commitHandler> is cleaner.

  I think this concept from BTP is pretty useful and I don't see much
additional complexities it brings.  Why drop that in BA ?

  Rgds, Ricky
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 16:12:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:05 UTC