"mark.little(a)jboss.com" wrote : "bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : Mark, this is what we've been arguing about privately over email. JBPM provides support for long-term flows, and because the flow definition/metadata can either be persisted or travel with the message, federation would be supported. | | | | I'm pretty sure we've established that this is a good thing for us to support on the ESB. | | anonymous wrote : | | In my mind, even compensating transactions could be covered in the process flow definition. You either rollback in a local transaction to your original save point in the message flow and start over, or you catch the problem and transition to the compensating part of the defined message flow. | | | | Until I see an implementation of a process engine that uses a transaction engine as its core for compensations, I'm not convinced that compensations are truly supported. Something like WS-BA (or one of the other dozen or so compensation transaction models) require durability, coordination and reliability characteristics that are often just ignored by process engines (both commercial and open source), leaving a lot up to the user. Wasn't thinking about crash and recovery. Still, don't compensations have to be more business process oriented usually anyways? Bill View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4029142#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...