OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro



I also completely support this view.  I find the need and the scenario of
manually handcrafting BPEL documents a little hard to define and justify.
"Process" in itself is at the level of abstraction that is the above the
level of "the hacker".  So, in reality, I personally do not think that the
BPEL document will be produced and maintained by anything other than visual
editors.

Thanks,

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071
_______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Ritzinger [mailto:GRitzinger@novell.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:55 AM
To: arkin@intalio.com; satisht@microsoft.com
Cc: fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com; LEY1@de.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

I agree that most authors will use visual tools. For the manual editing
cases adding "implicit" rules will just make the document harder to read
and maintain. If someone really needs this, then they'll define their
own macro.

Greg Ritzinger


>>> Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> 6/12/2003 3:49:38 AM >>>
If someone came up with a use case where in fact they write BPEL 
documents using an XML or text editor, and in fact use this 
simplification a significant number of times, then I would say that we

need to support it on the basis that it helps document authors to be 
more productive.

I have yet to see BPEL documents being authored manually on a wide 
scale. What we have are process authors that use visual tools 
exclusively, and the tool couldn't care less which syntax we use. In 
fact, for the tool, it's not really a simplification but an extra step

to represent a sequence as a <sequence>.

Since this is going to surface again, perhaps we should come up with a

non-requirement to address this on a broader basis, or open up an issue

along the lines of "simplifying the syntax to ease authoring of BPEL 
documents" and propose a resolution.

arkin


Satish Thatte wrote:

>Frank,
>
>You are right that this would have to be context sensitive - in a
<flow>
>we already have activity+  -- Yuzo has said that his idea would only
>apply where we have activity as a singleton.  Another complication
;-)
>
>Satish
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Leymann [mailto:LEY1@de.ibm.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:53 PM
>To: Satish Thatte
>Cc: Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
>
>
>Satish, Yuzo,
>
>from my point of view the implicit <sequence> assumption is
completely
>arbitrary:  Some might have parallel ordering in mind, i.e. <flow>
>without
>any links.
>
>Regards,
>Frank
>
>Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann, Distinguished Engineer
>Member, IBM Academy
>IBM Software Group
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Phone1........: +49-7031-16 3998
>Phone2........: +49-7056-96 5067
>Mobile   .......: +49-172-731 5858
>
>
>
>
>
>To:    "Yuzo Fujishima" <fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com>,
>       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
>cc:
>Subject:    RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
>
>
>Yuzo,
>
>If we expected people to directly author processes at this level
>something like this would be attractive, but do you really expect
that?
>
>Satish
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:15 PM
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org 
>Subject: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
>
>Hi,
>
>I would like to propose what may be called "implicit sequence".
>
>Implicit sequence "macro":
>If multiple activities are placed in a process definition
>where only one activity is allowed per se, assume there is an
>implicit sequence activity that contains the activities.
>
>Example:
>
>Regard
>  <scope>
>   <receive/>
>   <invoke/>
>   <reply/>
>  </scope>
>as
>  <scope>
>   <sequence>     <!-- implicit sequence -->
>    <receive/>
>    <invoke/>
>    <reply/>
>   </sequence>
>  </scope>
>
>Pros:
>* More concise description.
>
>Cons:
>* ?
>
>What do you think?
>
>Yuzo Fujishima
>NEC Corporation
>
>  
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]