[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]
Yaron, I'm trying to grapple here with what the real problem is. I agree simple is vital - otherwise compliance testing becomes a vast project for one - and implementation another. What are why trying to do here with a JOIN? Why do we need a query language? Surely this is trivial - Join condition({XPath expression}, #targetnode), Where #targetnode is a standard XML IDREF anchor to some other point of the XML. When the condition is true you branch to the anchor. Am I missing something? DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> To: "'Maciej Szefler'" <mbs@fivesight.com>; "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com> Cc: "'rkhalaf'" <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution] > The question is what will cause the least amount of effort for users? To > take an existing language that they are familiar with and routinely use and > then create a sub-set of it for use in join-conditions or to create an > entirely new language specifically for join conditions and now force users > to learn two languages with potentially unrelated and inconsistent syntaxes? > > I personally favor the former. I also think that if we are to finish this > spec in a reasonable amount of time we should avoid creating new query > languages. > > Just my two cents, > > Yaron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:55 AM > > To: ygoland@bea.com; 'Assaf Arkin' > > Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution] > > > > > > Consistency should be reserved for areas where there is some > > common domain. > > As Assaf points out join conditions have nothing to do with XML node > > selection, so why would we try to adopt an expression language aimed > > squarely at XML node selection crippling it so that it no > > longer does what > > it was intended to do? It makes no sense to me. If anything > > it makes things > > confusing. > > > > Would a structured XML representation such as "<and><link > > name="foo"/<link > > name="bar"></and>" satisfy your objection to creating multiple sets of > > grammars? > > > > -maciej > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:08 AM > > To: 'Assaf Arkin' > > Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution] > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > > the roster of the > > OASIS TC), go to > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le > ave_workgroup. > php. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]