RE: [wsbpel] Issue 53 - Motion for consideration by the TC

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

+1

We have enough oceans to boil. Let us please not add another.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:49 PM
> To: Green, Alastair J.; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 53 - Motion for consideration by the TC
> 
> 
> Alastair,
> 
> As you know I recognize the importance of business transactions and
> process coordination.  However, as I said during the call 
> today, I have
> serious concerns about the specific approach you are proposing
> 
> 1. It uses a vanilla outcome notification rather than
> application-defined operations.  As such I don't see how application
> data will be transmitted along with the notifications.  This is
> analogous to the issue we had internally within BPEL 
> (issue#3) regarding
> compensation handlers getting access to "global state".
> 
> 2. The simple outcome-notification for cancel/confirm is just one
> stylized pattern for process coordination.  Other patterns 
> are possible
> -- for instance one where the original work (e.g., a purchase 
> order) may
> be changed rather than just cancelled/confirmed.  But with 
> the explicit
> handler approach this would require additional syntactic extensions (a
> change handler?).
> 
> 3.  We can already model these stylized patterns using existing BPEL
> mechanisms as I tried to illustrate with my presentation at the F2F
> (just uploaded to TC site under "related resources").
> 
> 4.  I believe the details of actually making this work with multiple
> concrete coordination protocols will get very hairy in practice, and
> could become a rather serious problem for interoperability.
> 
> Even if we cannot agree that the "design pattern" approach I suggested
> is the right approach for the long term, I think we can agree that our
> priority should be to correct, clarify and complete the feature set we
> already have in BPEL, which is large and complex enough, and where we
> still have significant technical difficulties to work through (e.g.,
> issue#10).
> 
> If we want to finish the work of this TC by the middle of 
> 2004, I would
> strongly urge that we (at a minimum) defer this new feature 
> dimension to
> a later version when it can be given the scope of effort it 
> deserves.  
> 
> Satish
> ________________________________________
> From: Green, Alastair J. [mailto:Alastair.Green@choreology.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:55 AM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 53 - Motion for consideration by the TC
> 
> Please find attached a motion for consideration as new business, and
> some related notes.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alastair
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>