Re: [ebxml-bp] Dynamic (late) binding proposal - take 3 now with diagram

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

Correct.  The two mechanisms have been enabled by the
schema changes we have for V2 now.

However - we need to recognize that having a generalized
mechanism in place - negates the need for continual
schema changes in the future - that's the whole point.
So - while for the specific TTP need we've opened that
up because of a specific short term use case- in general future
use cases should be seeking to use the external
context system - rather than burdening the base
schema with yet more complexity.

Also - and this is critical - implementations that use
schema level tweaks are hidden and not able to
expose these to the business level - for verification.

Not to mention potential schema parser issues.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Dynamic (late) binding proposal - take 3 now with
diagram


> Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.WI-55-LateBinding Update;
> Topic|;
> Point|Basis for Future Conditionality Pattern;
>
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200405/msg00116.html;
>
>
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200405/msg00120.html;
>
> mm1@
> David,
> I don't believe this precludes the use of an external mechanism. As you
> see in the submission by Anders, any variability can be handled by an
> external mechanism.
> And, with future work in v3.0, if you wish, it could be available for use.
>
> Thanks.
> David RR Webber wrote:
>
> >Anders,
> >
> >I'm a bit confused by some of this.  Surely right now the
> >transport layer has the timers in it already - so no
> >need for this - you just have a <failure> condition on
> >timeout - (see how I've done this in my BPSS model
> >already).
> >
> >And then - the context mechanism V2 proposal and
> >latest V2 schema *already* supports the use of
> >variables and associating a context instance.
> >(Have you read the context mechanism proposal I have
> >posted?).  I don't agree this is a path to unforeseen
> >sideeffects.  That's the whole point of the external
> >context mechanism - that there are *no* unforeseen
> >options - all are known and perscribed and
> >agreed at design time.
> >
> >Again - the BPSS model example includes this coupling,
> >and the tutorial PPT explains it in detail.
> >
> >However - having said all this - linking events into this
> >I believe is a V3 item.  So far the context mechanism
> >supports using variables and rules relating to document
> >content (eg: if urgentOrder="true", etc).  Simple stuff.
> >Use of an event to change BPSS aspects is another
> >whole item that would need to be thought thru.
> >
> >Thanks, DW
> >
> @mm1
>
>