An Illustrative Recovery Approach for Stateful Interaction Failure of Orchestrated Processes

Wang, Lei; Wombacher, Andreas; Pires, Luís Ferreira; Sinderen, Marten van; Chi, Chi‐Hung

doi:10.1109/edocw.2012.15

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…'Arbitrary failure' and 'Response failure' are out of the scope of this work. In our previous work (Wang et al, 2012a(Wang et al, , 2012b, the state synchronisation failure of state type private [Figure 4(c)] has been considered. In this paper, we propose a solution for the synchronisation failure of state type shared static [Figure 4(a)].…”

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Failures X f p3 and X f p6 do not affect the synchronisation because the failure occurs when the synchronisation is finished. The failure points X f p4 and X f p5 are regarded as service unavailable failure and pending response failure in our previous work (Wang et al, 2012a(Wang et al, , 2012b respectively. The service unavailable failure happens when the network fails to deliver the request message m1 (failure point X f p4 2 ) or the ProcessInstanceB crashes before the message m1's delivery (failure point X f p4 1 ).…”

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pending response failure happens when the ProcessInstanceB crashes before the delivery of response message (failure point X f p5 1 ) or the network fails to deliver the response message (failure point X f p5 2 ). These type of synchronisation failures can be solved using the synchronisation mechanisms proposed in Wang et al (2012aWang et al ( , 2012b. In this work we focus on failure point X f p2 .…”

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our aim is to transform the process to provide improved reliability with regard to system crashes and network failures. In previous work (Wang et al, 2012a(Wang et al, , 2012b we have considered coordination scenarios where the effects of the state changes in one collaboration do not affect other collaborations. In this paper, we focus on a server process instance collaborating with multiple client process instances, where one collaboration may affect another collaboration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Robust collaborative process interactions under system crash and network failures

Wang

Wombacher

Pires

et al. 2013

IJBPIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the possibility of system crashes and network failures, the design of robust client/server interactions for collaborative process execution is a challenge. If a business process changes its state, it sends messages to the relevant processes to inform about this change. However, server crashes and network failures may result in loss of messages. In this case, the state change is performed by the sending process in isolation, resulting in state/behaviour inconsistencies among processes and possibly undistinguished deadlocks. Our basic idea to solve this problem is to cache the response (in a synchronous request-response interaction) if the state of the process instance has changed by the request message. The possible state inconsistencies are recognised and compensated by state-caching and by retrying failed interactions.

show abstract

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Synchronisation Failure Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Robust collaborative process interactions under system crash and network failures

Wang

Wombacher

Pires

et al. 2013

IJBPIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous work [2], the transformation of a WS-BPEL process into a process with state synchronization guarantees has been presented. In this paper, we present a formal proof that our approach actually provides the state synchronization guarantees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A State Synchronization Mechanism for Orchestrated Processes

Wang

Wombacher

Pires

et al. 2012

2012 IEEE 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two orchestrated processes interacting with each other have to maintain their own states. Messages are used to synchronize states between orchestrated processes. Server crash and network failure may result in loss of messages and therefore result in a state change performed by only one party. Thus, the states of the parties are no longer synchronized, resulting in state inconsistencies and in worst case deadlocks. In this paper, we propose a mechanism for guaranteed state synchronization of orchestrated processes with system and network failures. Our mechanism is based on interaction patterns and process transformations. The basic idea is to redesign the original processes into their state synchronizationenabled counterparts via process transformations that can be automated. The transformation mechanism is formalized based on Colored Petri Nets. We present the formal proof of the correctness of our mechanism and give the overhead analysis to illustrate its practicability.

show abstract