[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Manual Operations in BPSS"
Monica, I believe this will be resolved in V3.0 - assuming we look more closely at the BCM linking and switching mechanism at that point - and related use cases and requirements. Right now we have the notion of actions and steps - and these progress accordingly with the guard conditions, and success/ failure to a logical result(s). As discussed on todays call - the notion of "compensation", aka recovery - is something that is not a major issue for BPSS, in the way it is in BPEL. That's not to say you may want to signal "abort process" and have some clean-up occur - but the side effects and so on are constrained by the BPSS binary model itself. Anyway - my thought is that we have enough refinements going into V2.0 to provide remediation and improvements to BPSS - a more wholesale set of mechanisms and capabilities is more appropriately done under the V3.0 effort. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> To: "Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com> Cc: <martin.me.roberts@bt.com>; <dnickull@adobe.com>; <david@drrw.info>; <zbarch@rcn.com>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Manual Operations in BPSS" > > >Fletcher: Dear Martin Duane and others, > > > > > mm1: Forgive my delayed response. > > >....To synchronise state one must not only set the communicating protocol > >machines to complementary states (which is what we tend to concentrate on), > >but also align the shared resources (or objects). > > > >And yes I picked up on this from a number of folks including Bob Haugen, it > >is my understanding that it is indeed the central idea of the COOL > >architecture, but it actually goes back to CMIP as Martin mentions, and > >probably way before that too. In spite of the COOL presentation I am not > >sure that the ideas have been properly worked into the UN/CEFACT documents > >yet though(?) > > > > > mm1: Yes to your first and second points here. On these points, several > of us recognize there is a difference between process and object state, > and the object or entity may change state several times when the process > may not be affected. And, vice versa. Some of this has to do with what > state is exposed and available in a shared collaboration environment. > > >But the alignment of protocol state and resource / object state certainly > >should be part of BPSS as it goes forward (in my opinion). > > > > > mm1: Yes, again. See above. > > On Martin's previous point on providing an indication of what state the > process instance is actually in, perhaps we should further discuss this > point to see if a work item is warranted. I encourage others comments. > > Reference: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00197.html > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00211.html > > Thanks. > Thanks. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]