RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

["Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>]

This issue of shortcuts (and syntactic sugar, in general) is something that
is minor 
(at least, accoring to me :-)) and  can be postponed till later. Let us
first try to identify 
the major issues, and attack them first. We can
start by posting to the email list the list of top 5 or 10 issues that we
consider major. 
This will help us get a start on the issues list and help us focus our
energies. 

Another thought is for
each submitter who raises an issue to rate its importance on some scale
(something like Must Fix, Nice to Have, Minor Enhancement, Major Enhancement
etc) so that everyone knows how the submitter views the submission.

Comments?

Kartha



-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:28 PM
To: edwink@collaxa.com; Satish Thatte; Yuzo Fujishima;
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro


I agree. If we decide that sequence shortcuts are not good, then we should
be consistent throughout the spec and eliminate existing shortcuts. Or we
should provide a rationale for why existing shortcuts like compensation are
the only good ones.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:30 PM
> To: 'Satish Thatte'; 'Yuzo Fujishima'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
> 
> 
> +1. Could we please apply the same logic to exception and compensation
> shortcuts? Shortcuts are evil! :-)
> 
> Edwin 
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:25 PM
> > To: Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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