RE: [wsbpel] Resolution to issue 10 - Implicit compensation Handler

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

Good specs define a minimum set of mandatory requirements that anyone who
wants to be considered compliant must implement. Once an implementation
meets that minimum it may add any extensions of any type it would like. But
remember, none of those extensions can be mandatory. That is, if the
implementation mandates the use of one of those extensions in order to run a
BPEL then the implementation is not compliant.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:37 PM
> To: Assaf Arkin; ygoland@bea.com
> Cc: 'Satish Thatte'; 'Sid Askary'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Resolution to issue 10 - Implicit compensation
> Handler
>
>
> From: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>
>
> > So are you saying I can extend the BPEL specification any
> way I want,
> > and that would still be regarded as a BPEL implementation?
>
> isn't that the reason that almost every element being an extensibility
> point?
>
>