Re: [ebxml-bp] Late Binding

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

David, I prefer to approach the issues at hand using structured approach 
in order to gain knowledge before resorting to generic solution. I try 
to avoid "If you have a hammer then all problems look like a nail".

David RR Webber wrote:

> DW: What the BCM and CAM work teaches us is that these factors that
> "bubble up" here to the CPA are the "big ticket" ones.  
>

"BCM and CAM work teaches us"  ... "bubble up" ???

>>* How can "overriding" be used to create a "natural" way of defining
>>timing or other constraints?
>>    
>>
> DW: By tying it to the existing BPSS structure.  We are not allowing
> people to morph or extend the BPSS itself - so this is a naturally
> constrained facility here.  The namespace bpss: is also intuitive way
> to reference the BPSS elements.
>  
>

Using XML namespace prefixes in a sense that it means something in a 
specification is never a good solution. Simply because prefixes may not 
be preserved during XML parsing.

>>* If you delegate the task of determining timeToPerform to a remote
>>method, then what happens in case of invocation failure or timeout?
>>
>>    
>>
>  DW:  We are NOT doing this.  The context is EXPLICTLY managed
>  by the BPSS engine - by looking at the intersection of three factors:
>  as:function() statements, bpss:reference(s) and doc:transaction details.
>  All these are within the BPSS environment and there are no external
>  calls.
>  
>
Im not sure who you mean by we, but the method invocation was discussed 
during a conf call. If Im not misstaken it was brought up by Dale M.  It 
is IMHO a relevant suggestion that deserves attention and analysis.


Thanks
/Anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone: +46 8 545 885 87           /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////