[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA)
> BTW do we have an issues process so we can start raising issues agains > the spec and track them? Jeff, Dieter and Yaron own this. I have not seen any announcements except that there will be an update on 6/25. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:16 PM To: Satish Thatte Cc: edwink@collaxa.com; Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA) Satish Thatte wrote: >These are all great questions. Let us start with interoperability, >before we sink into the morass of minimality ;-) > >I believe that a combination of abstract processes with WSDL (1.1 or >1.2) should provide an elementary level of predictability of external >behavior that I would characterize as the focus of interoperability. >Here we need to find some way (including another dependency) to address >issues regarding policies for reliability and security, among others, >although the protocols required are defined elsewhere. > +1 One of the issues we have is the need to introduce some minimal set of policies that would be defined as part of the process/abstract/interface to ensure interoperability. That ties to the other questions on my list. >For both executable processes and abstract processes, we will need an >operational semantics that unambiguously defined behavior without >relying on interpretations of the English text in the spec. This is the >other side of predictability, not of externally facing behavior but of >executable behavior. > +1 BTW do we have an issues process so we can start raising issues agains the spec and track them? arkin > >Satish > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]