Hi, all,
I have not received any reply on this subject. :-)
Anyway, I removed "enableInstanceCompensation" attribute.
But, I did not add <terminationHandler> to <invoke>. Let's
discuss it in editor conf call tomorrow.
I just checked in the changes in CVS.
The pen is now available.
Thanks.
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi all (members of editor groups),
I would like to let you guys that I am fixing a number of typos that I
discovered a month ago. (For details, please see the attached email)
And, Just a reminder, in addition to renaming from
"variableAccessSerializable"
to "isolated", I am going to change "serializable scopes" to
"isolated scopes" in the main spec text as well to make sure those
terms are consistent.
Two more questions:
One more thing: I presume the "enableInstanceCompensation"
attribute of <process> should be removed from the XSD also. Right?
<invoke> can have fault handler. Do we want to add
<terminationHandler> to <invoke> also?
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi, all,
FYI ... some editorial mistakes are discovered.
Hopefully, I can make those correction changes before Wednesday conf
call.
If someone has extra cycle, please feel free to volunteer. :-)
Regards,
Alex Yiu
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Issue 1 and 135 changes
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:32:56 -0800
From:
Satish Thatte <>
To:
Alex Yiu <>
Thanks
for
making these catches.
From: Alex
Yiu [mailto:]
Sent: Monday,
December
06, 2004 2:05 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Alex Yiu
Subject: Re:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
Issue 1 and 135 changes
Hi, Satish,
I am browsing the changes you made for Issue 1, 10 and 135.
Few questions:
(a) I noticed that you added the terminationHandler to the process
level, not
the scope level.
I guess it is not intentional, right? You mean the other way around?
[Satish]
Oops it
needs the other way around. Please fix everywhere (doc and XSD).
[I should have caught these problems earlier, when I was synchronizing
up the
XSD for you.]
(b) Few weeks ago, I also found out that the compensationHandler is
still
available in the process level. I guess that was a left-out in previous
editing
changes. Right?
[Satish]
Yes
indeed.
(c) Should the "variableAccessSerializable"
be renamed to "isolated" as a result of Issue 1?
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200406/msg00093.html
[Satish]
Yes
again!
If you agree with all these are some non-intentional editoral mistakes,
I would
forward this message to the editing group list.
[Satish]
Please
do.
Would it be too late to make another round of changes now for Dec F2F?
[Satish]
These
are important fixes. We should make them as soon as possible, before
the F2F.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
