[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine
Guys, > My counter argument is that you need to build support for serializing > activities that synchronize through links. It's not an easy task, but > you'll have to do it anyway. If you already spent the time > making flows > work properly, might as well use that piece of code in all > cases. If you > write it once and use it all over the place then there's a good ROI > argument in favor of using <flow> as much as possible. Less code to > develop, less test cases, etc. At least from an execution perspective. After having hand written BPEL scripts, and intending to do so in future (because sometimes you just have to do things for yourself), I would plead the case for keeping useful bits of syntactic sugar like <flow>. For those of us who will be writing BPEL by hand (and I might be a minority of one here) other constructs like <macro> or <procedure> would be very welcome too. The point is, although I can see that tools are really useful in this arena, there will always be cases where tools aren't applicable. Given that BPEL hasn't been used much so far, it is premature to start optimising away features that I (for one) might rely on! Jim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]