RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]

["Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

This has nothing to do with XML manipulation, this has to do with the need
to have a consistent expression/query language used throughout BPEL. If
someone is moving to a new expression/query language for all other
expressions in BPEL they should not be forced to use a different
expression/query language just for join conditions. That is why join
condition must have the same syntax flexibility that is available to all
other expressions/queries.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:00 PM
> To: ygoland@bea.com
> Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]
>
>
> Yaron Goland wrote:
>
> >Imagine a prefix style XML manipulation language is
> introduced that does
> >things like "and(foo,bar)". No tool in its right mind is
> going to say to the
> >user 'well you can use the prefix style everywhere in BPEL
> but this one
> >single place, join conditions, where you have to use an
> infix "foo and bar"
> >style.'
> >
> >
> You're right.
>
> I've read the spec over and over and over and I still don't
> understand
> what XML manipulation has to do with join conditions. I don't
> see node
> selection, there's no context node or any variable/function
> you can use
> to operate on nodes. No operators are allowed unless they deal with
> binary values. If nodes are non-existent, then where does XML
> manipulation come into play?
>
> So while I agree with the logic you presented, I still fail
> to see how
> it applies to join conditions.
>
> arkin
>
>