Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Harvey Reed wrote:

>Maybe I don't understand this issue at all, please help me out:
>
>1. I think we are talking about sub-processes in the context of reuse, and I
>think your email reiterated that.
>
>2. The two obvious choices for reuse are:
>(a) inline textual reuse, which some people have suggested tools can help;
>(b) another BPEL process
>
>3. Why don't I think there is an in between ground? Because if you want to
>do useful work in the sub-process, that implies a coordinated shift of
>state, a.k.a. subject to transactional control, which drags in all the
>handlers. Then you are just a short hop from a full BPEL process.
>  
>
mm1: Harvey, I would suggest we look to our available TC processes to 
help solve this question. We have several technical preferences afoot, 
although (in line with what has started to become the obvious), I 
believe we need to evolve examples and even develop use cases here to 
understand the business and technical application and usage of the 
preferences being discussed.  Perhaps we take one case and line out 
examples where the different preferences are applied and go from there.  
We have processes in this TC why not use them.......

>Please show me how useful (transactional) work can be done, with
>reusability, that isn't one of the above 2 choices.
>
>For me, this issue isn't so much about philosophy of programming languages
>(although that is an interesting area, and I was co-author of a programming
>language while at Motorola); the issue is instead a practical one of how to
>accomplish useful work in a sub-process.
>
>++Harvey
>  
>