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

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Danny van der Rijn wrote:

>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?
>
>  
>
There are other ways you can extend a language, e.g. using an adjunct 
specification. And while extension elements/attributes allow you to 
include anything you want, the specification can still say something 
about it. For example, it could say that all such extensions should not 
change the semantics of the definition as defined by the existing 
specification. Otherwise, I could put extensions on <assign> so it 
behaves like an <invoke>, or I could put extensions on <while> so it 
behaves like <choice>. How far to we want to go?

And more specifically, what kind of extensions would still allow it to 
be considered a BPEL implementation as far as the IPR policy is concerned?

arkin