> ****WILL BE HANDLED BY BANANAS****                                     
>                                                                       
>                                                    Section 3.5
> 1) Monica. Interactions and exceptions: If the exception handling is 
> not defined, the potential state changes cannot be fully described 
> either.
> David. Agreed, if exceptions are not defined and something goes wrong 
> then the behavior of the choreography is undefined./
> 2) Monica. If exceptions are handled within the context of a work unit 
> (of activities), how does this in effect realize itself in the 
> interactions
> associated with the portable choreography - one-way and req-response?
> David. Exceptions are handled at the Choreography level rather than 
> within a workunit. Not sure what you mean about your last point.
> 3) Monica. These may or may not be the same (and may impact one 
> another). Exception conditions can occur that may be supported, at a more
> granular level, with error handling at the message level.
> David. I definitely think that exception conditions can be many and 
> varied in the levels they could cover, e.g. security/message errors,
> choreography sequence errors, data errors, etc. All of these could 
> affect the flow of the choreography.
> Section 3.7:
> 4) Monica. (BUSINESS SEMANTIC)
> Exception != Error (BUS SEMANTIC != MESSAGE OCCURRENCE)
> David. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that an exception 
> is not the same as an error as you might have a "business exception"
> that appears as a normal interaction (i.e. a message) in the 
> choreography. I agree. However, I do think that exceptions are really 
> in the mind
> of the choreography designer. For example you COULD define all the 
> work units in the Base Choreography whether they are "normal"
> (whatever that means) or  "exceptions" (again whatever THAT means!). 
> The reason for having an exception block was to make the
> choreography easier to understand as you then had one section (the 
> base choreo block) that defines what usually happens, and another (the
> exception block) that defines what's unusual. The actual split is 
> arbitrary.
> All above: mm2: This is a broader discussion, I think. Because I am 
> still toying with the bananas and where they get peeled. Given this 
> set of comments, I am leaning to the fact that the exceptions are 
> understood at the business semantic level and only seen as another 
> message in WS-CDL.