[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?
Hi David, Good point! Visual extensions should be the headache of the tool vendors. I don't think the current scope of the TC includes the standardization of the visual representation of the BPEL artifacts. However, it would be interesting to see if TC members have any thoughts about what extensions will need to be added ( if any ), to support the diagramming of the BPEL. (I presume, folks from Collaxa and Intalio, Maciej and Sadiq will have some valuable inputs here) In reference to your earlier mail, I still think, we should look at the other standards ( competing or complementary ) to see how we can leverage their work. Then, build as you have suggested - with suitable levels of de-coupling using the power of XML. Thanks, Rajesh. -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:39 PM To: Maciej Szefler Cc: WS BPEL (E-mail); Burdett, David; Jim Webber; edwink@collaxa.com; Sadiq, Waqar; doron@collaxa.com Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F? Contrary-wise - one could argue that for BPEL to succeed - it will make managing such complex interactions simple by providing components that manage those complexities and limit them, so that average mortals can quickly and easily construct robust and replicatable systems - reliably - without regard to what vendor is behind the BPEL they have written..... And I agree - that we do not need to solve vendors problems for them. Visual representations - while stimulating intellectually - are probably a bottomless ocean depth to be plumbed. I'd much rather have clear simple components and behaviours, and let other people build sets of pictures - that allow end users to manipulate and express those. DW. ================================================== Message text written by "Maciej Szefler" > If the promise of BPEL is to be fulfilled it is to be expected that process descriptions will grow to be quite complicated, on par with what can currently be seen in traditional workflow implementations. I would imagine that one point of differentiation among vendors of BPEL technology would be in the area of presentation and constructions of such process descriptions. Perhaps it would be wise to include a completely opaque vendor extension area in the process descriptor for whatever visual annotation the vendor requires, rather than developing specific visual annotations. Maciej Szefler Vice President - Product Development < --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]