Re: [wsbpel] Q: process category?

[Sid Askary <saskary@nuperus.com>]

Folks,
The GUID creates type dependencies that defeat the purpose for 
communication of tuples of value.  My original question was that the 
category can be viewed as an additional tuple for identifying process group 
membership (in the global model) for collaboration purposes.  It can also 
serve as a mechanism to organize (and/or optimize) computation when dealing 
with the internal data representation during process execution.

Having read some of the responses, I’m inclined to think that the notion of 
a category could belong to a top-level element that would sit above the 
process.

---
Sid.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:55:36 -0700, Edwin Khodabakchian <edwink@collaxa.com> 
wrote:

> Ron,
> Assigning a UUID to a process opens the door to the problems related to
> change management, versioning and life cycle management. Unless we decide 
> to
> get down to the level of what a BPEL deployment unit looks like, I am not
> sure that adding UUID brings any value.
>
> Edwin
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, 
> September 04, 2003 1:35 PM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: Sid Askary; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Q: process category?
>
>
> Satish Thatte wrote:
>
>
> See below
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> [Ten-Hove]  A process category may fall mostly into the "deployment" 
> bucket,
> and thus be ultra vires. Alternatively, perhaps it would be useful to 
> give
> each process type a globally unique identifier.
>
>
>
> [Satish Thatte] It is easy to manufacture a unique QName from the
> targetNamespace and NCName of the process -- one may claim that this is 
> in
> fact implied by the usual semantics of targetNamespaces.
>
> [Ten-Hove] This technique would work, but it is a convention, not a
> guaranteed property of process definitions. Unless one has complete 
> control
> of tools, deployment and run-time, a convention cannot be used to 
> guarantee
> this uniqueness property.
>
> As an alternative to an explicit uuid attribute, we may try adding 
> wording
> requiring the convention you suggest. Something like:
>
>
> The name and targetNamespace of the process must be globally unique. If 
> an
> existing process is modified, the name and/or tns must be modified to 
> ensure
> that the new version of the process has a unique identity, such that it
> cannot be confused for the old.
>
>
> I don't particularly like this -- it sounds a lot like a hack, and makes 
> it
> sound like we never heard of UUIDs! But personal tastes aside,  does this
> sound reasonable?
>
> Cheers,
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Sid.