Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

[Ron Ten-Hove <ronald.ten-hove@sun.com>]

Assaf Arkin wrote:

> Ugo Corda wrote:
>
>> 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
>>  
>>
> Where is the shortcut in compensation?

I think Ugo was refering to the <invoke> activity, which has a short-cut 
form for providing a compensation handler. Page 72 explains that it is a 
shortcut to avoid explicitly defining a scope.

These seems an odd optimization, to save a minor amount of typing. The 
authors were perhaps envisioning BPEL process designers equipped only 
with vi?

-Ron