RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro)

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

I honestly don't think <sequence> needs to justify its existence.
Concurrency with synchronization can emulate sequentiality but that is
clearly a convoluted and expensive way to do the simplest kind of
orchestration.

Satish

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:42 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was:
Implicit <sequence> macro)


Satish Thatte wrote:

>I believe a <sequence> activity can be replaced with a <flow
>suppressJoinFailure="false"> activity with a few more caveats, to
>produce equivalent control sequencing behavior.  Why do you ask?
>
>Satish
>  
>
The whole discussion started from the comment made by Bernd "especially 
the second case shows, that there is no need for the sequence activity 
from a control flow point of few. I guess it would be good to add some 
comments on this in the spec."

So if we nail down the difference we may want to include such an 
explanation in the text.

arkin