Fault, Compensation and Termination in WS-BPEL 2.0 - A Comparative Analysis

One of the most challenging aspects in Web Service composition is guaranteeing transactional integrity. This is usually achieved by providing mechanisms for fault, compensation and termination (FCT) handling. WS-BPEL 2.0, the de-facto standard language for Business Process Orchestration provides powerful scope-based FCT-handling mechanisms. However, the lack of a formal semantics makes it difficult to understand and implement these constructs, and renders rigid analysis impossible. The general concept of compensating long-running business transactions has been studied in different formal theories, such as cCSP and Sagas, but none of them is specific to WS-BPEL 2.0. Other approaches aim at providing formal semantics for FCT-handling in WS-BPEL 2.0, but only concentrate on specific aspects. Therefore, they cannot be used for a comparative analysis of FCT-handling in WS-BPEL 2.0. In this paper we discuss the BPEL approach to FCT-handling in the light of recent research. We provide formal semantics for the WS-BPEL 2.0 FCT-handling mechanisms which aims at capturing the FCT-part of the WS-BPEL 2.0 specification in full detail. We then compare the WS-BPEL 2.0 approach to FCT-handling to existing formal theories.

[1]  Gordon D. Plotkin,et al.  A structural approach to operational semantics , 2004, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[2]  Franck van Breugel,et al.  Verication of Business Processes for Web Services , 2003 .

[3]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  A Trace Semantics for Long-Running Transactions , 2004, 25 Years Communicating Sequential Processes.

[4]  Vincent Danos,et al.  Transactions in RCCS , 2005, CONCUR.

[5]  Manuel Mazzara,et al.  A Framework for Generic Error Handling in Business Processes , 2004, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Andrew D. Gordon,et al.  Verified Reference Implementations of WS-Security Protocols , 2006, WS-FM.

[7]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  Theoretical foundations for compensations in flow composition languages , 2005, POPL '05.

[8]  Cosimo Laneve,et al.  Foundations of Web Transactions , 2005, FoSSaCS.

[9]  Cosimo Laneve,et al.  web-pi at Work , 2005, TGC.

[10]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[11]  Rania Y. Khalaf,et al.  Supporting business process fragmentation while maintaining operational semantics: a BPEL perspective , 2008 .

[12]  Geguang Pu,et al.  Semantics of BPEL4WS-Like Fault and Compensation Handling , 2005, FM.

[13]  Geguang Pu,et al.  Towards the Semantics and Verification of BPEL4WS , 2006, WLFM@FM.

[14]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  Comparing Two Approaches to Compensable Flow Composition , 2005, CONCUR.

[15]  Francisco Curbera,et al.  Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 , 2007 .

[16]  Ian Stark,et al.  Free-Algebra Models for the pi-Calculus , 2005, FoSSaCS.

[17]  Jifeng He,et al.  Theoretical Foundations of Scope-Based Compensable Flow Language for Web Service , 2006, FMOODS.

[18]  Michael J. Butler,et al.  An Operational Semantics for StAC, a Language for Modelling Long-Running Business Transactions , 2004, COORDINATION.

[19]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  A Feature-Complete Petri Net Semantics for WS-BPEL 2.0 , 2007, WS-FM.

[20]  H McCarrick,et al.  The first 25 years , 1973, Nursing times.

[21]  Manuel Mazzara,et al.  A pi-calculus based semantics for WS-BPEL , 2007, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..