Re: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Burdett, David wrote:

>>>>One may want it to be more like a flowchart, while another would prefer
>>>>        
>>>>
>it to look like a statechart diagram. One may like to have a top-to-bottom
>flow, while another may prefer a left-to-right flow ...<<<
>
>My whole reasoning for wanting to keep some positional information about a
>visual representation of a BPEL definition was that no matter what the
>visual representation was (e.g. any of the ones you suggest) it could be
>preserved when moving the BPEL definition from one development environment
>to another.
>  
>
I also believe there needs to be a way to keep some positional 
information about a visual representation of a BPEL definition. And I 
also think the way you do it should be standardized, and would also 
prefer to see at least one notation that a significant number of 
products can agree to use. (Important to not have just one notation, or 
force everyone to use the same notation).

The visual layout is not critical to execution but it's important for 
management, and quite frankly it's all about management ;-)

But if you have more than one notation that you have to keep it separate 
from the BPEL definition. Otherwise you get into "my process is 
different from your process because my box is 2pt higher". If you keep 
them separate than the process we are talking about it the same, even 
though we may use two different notations to express it. If the notation 
language is standardized, and the way in which it references the 
BPEL/WSDL/XSDL/other definitions is also standardized, then it becomes 
interchangable and interesting.

arkin

>David
>  
>