[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro)
+1, BPEL is an abstract virtual machine, it should have the minimum constructs necessary to express the universe of supported programs; if there is no "if-then-else" because "switch" has all the expressive power (and then some) of "if-then-else", then there should not be a "sequenence" by the same reasoning. -Maciej > -----Original Message----- > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:46 PM > To: Eckenfels. Bernd > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: > Implicit <sequence> macro) > > > I agree. > > If the distinction was made between doings thing in order or in > parallel, then I understand why you need two different > activities. But > we wouldn't need links or serializable scopes. Currently the flow > activity covers all the cases from strictly serialized to strictly > concurrent and all shades in between, making the sequence activity > nothing more than a convinience. You need to support the > complexity of > synchronized activities to support the flow activity, that's not easy > but if you have the capability you might as well use it all the way. > > So the sequence activity does need to justify its existence, and it > needs a generic rational so we can decide what to do with > other existing > or proposed "simplifications" to the language. > > arkin > > Eckenfels. Bernd wrote: > > >Hello Satish, > > > > > > > >>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. > >> > >> > > > >This may be true from the standpoint of writing bpel by > hand, but for sure it is a non issue for implementation. > Depending on your internal runtime data model, a sequence is > only an additional complication, provided the fact, that you > need to offer a implementation for flow, anyway. And since a > sequence does not forbid to have links in and out, it also > means your engine has to support the notion of > synchronisation, anyway. > > > >So we should make clear in the spec, that it is only a > shortcut, for skipping those links inside a sequential flow, > but all other properties will apply, anyway. > > > >Greetings > >Bernd > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]