[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
+1 on both accounts. arkin Glenn Mi wrote: >Agree with Ron and Edwin. > >I have some experiance with manually authoring BEPL. The most difficult part >seems to be to make sure the references to the WSDL artifacts are correct. >In my >opinion, if the programmer can handle the complexities of namespaces, >partnerLinks, etc., >he/she should not have any problem following any given BPEL syntax. > >Introducing anomalies for the sake of saving a few key strokes will actually >cause more problems, like compicating the debugger, etc. > >I would be happy to see that the faultHandler shortcut for <invoke> be >removed. > >Glenn Mi > > > > > >>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 >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]