RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL?

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

but surely the best way to deal with this is to raise an issue or introduce
a new requirement.
Thats where the pros and cons can be discussed.
In the particular case of correllations, I think the spec gives enough
rationale.

Martin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:59 AM
> To: Greg Ritzinger; ygoland@bea.com; Gnosis_@compuserve.com;
> martin.chapman@oracle.com
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL?
>
>
> At least it would be very useful to have a document on rationales
> which describes why certain things are done in one particular way
> out of other possible alternatives.
>
> Just to give an example, BPEL's current correlation mechanism is
> based on message contents (see CorrelationSets). It could be done
> instead using a correlationID abstract from actual message
> contents (and in fact it seems that the current spec hints at
> that as a future development based on WS-Addressing). What is the
> rationale for the current choice? What are the pros and cons
> compared to other solutions? etc.
>
> Ugo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Ritzinger [mailto:GRitzinger@novell.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:11 AM
> > To: ygoland@bea.com; Gnosis_@compuserve.com; martin.chapman@oracle.com
> > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL?
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are to review, fix and possibly change the BPEL spec, then I
> > believe we need its companion requirements spec. It would be nice to
> > know why something was put into BPEL before we attempt to change or
> > remove it.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > >>> "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> 6/12/2003 5:32:15 PM
> > >>>
> > IMHO the requirements are pretty simple; review the 1.1 spec, fix any
> > bugs,
> > resolve ambiguities, and
> > if you want new stuff or if you want to make radical changes propose
> > new
> > requirements.
> > I trust the originators of the spec itself to have done the
> > "meta" requirements exercise, for which BPEL4WS 1.1 is the result.
> >
> > Martin.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness
> > [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:34 AM
> > > To: Yaron Y. Goland
> > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yaron,
> > >
> > > There's another aspect to this - BPEL is it seems primarily
> > > intended to be used internally - with only a subset of the logic
> > > being shared externally.
> > >
> > > But what if that logic (that you built in your IDE GUI) is not
> > > readable - or causes undesirable results - in the IDE GUI
> > > of Product X - used by your partner?  Or your partners
> > > BPEL fragment causes bad results on your system? But
> > > the models look just lovely!
> > >
> > > You need to look at the raw XML to figure out why - and more
> > > to the point - interoperablity between products requires a
> > > simpler subset.
> > >
> > > Broken record - if we get back to the requirements - and if
> > > interoperability in this way is a key requirement - then
> > > simpler syntax, and also levels of conformance, are the
> > > way to go.
> > >
> > > Alternately you could just duck this whole issue by using
> > > something like BPSS to do the external coupling across
> > > processes.
> > >
> > > But we're still waiting for that unnamed graduate student to
> > > produce for us the definative list of requirements - so we
> > > can be crystal clear on all this.  What was his name again?
> > >
> > > Thanks, DW.
> > > ===================================================
> > > Message text written by "Yaron Y. Goland"
> > > >
> > > I remember in the late 1980s when everyone argued that source
> > > code was dead
> > > and all programs would be written using UIs.
> > >
> > > I remember the early 1990s when everyone argued that no one would
> > ever
> > > directly author HTML.
> > >
> > > I also remember the late 1990s when everyone (myself included =(
> > )argued
> > > that it didn't matter if XML was human editable since everyone would
> > use
> > > tools.
> > >
> > > It's funny how often everyone is wrong.
> > >
> > >         Just a thought,
> > >                         Yaron
> > > <
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>