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

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Arkin,

Your point on - BPEL needs to do this and that  - is well taken - but
tight coupling to say WSDL makes less sense.

What we need to understand is the explicit touch points that
will make the mechanisms we are defining work.

Then you do bindings from that to WSDL for sure - but overall
you've now got something that is an open standard - that will
work with any messaging framework that can support those,
not just WSDL.

We need to understand the use cases supported, and the 
boundaries.  Its OK to design something where we say for
V1.0 - it does this - and it does NOT do that, and that.

And that IS very much the point of developing an OASIS standard
instead of a specific vendor(s) implementation!

Good standards are robust and open IMHO.

Cheers, DW.
===========================================================
Message text written by Assaf Arkin
>If you go all the way to pi-calculus you end up with a situtation where 
two systems may decide to use different WSDL operations or construct 
different messages for the same process definition since there is no 
interpretations of how names/actions should be mapped to WSDL. So to 
answer Edwin's question, you lose interoperability , you might as well 
have no spec.

Or, you can formalize the manner in which WSDL operations are used with 
a pi-calculus like definition, but then you need to add further rules to 
the specification. Off the top of my head I can think of two/three rules 
and I can ensure you they are more complex than the definition of 
sequence. So while turning the language from a high-level model to a 
low-level model, you would significantly increase the complexity of the 
specification.
<