[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)
Ron, Exactly. Plus as we well know you can solve 80% with 20% effort, so in V1.0 - it can make sense to say we will address this subset as a requirement - see how much uptake there is - and driven by user demand then we can respond with more later. It's this aspect of the goals we need to drill out to - and right now we are missing that understanding. Obviously use cases help too. DW. Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove >Moving up a level, the question becomes: should we support cyclic process graphs? We know that BPEL, as it stands, cannot. Also, we know that business processes in the so-called real world tend to be pretty complex, and do often feature cycles that cannot be reduced to loops. If BPEL is to retain that leading capital B, should it not be able to execute such business processes? Or should we perhaps entertain a more accurate name: WS-SPEL (Structured Process Execution Language)? Once again, we have hit a topic whose resolution will depend on requirements. I hope that we can agree to a set of guiding requirements Real Soon Now; I feel somehow trapped in a cycle of our own creation right now. :-) Cheers, -Ron<
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]