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

["Haugen Robert" <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>]

Satish Thatte wrote:
> I am not questioning that all business patterns 
> have an orderly closure requirement and can 
> therefore be "fitted into a simple business 
> transaction protocol very nicely".  
> What I am questioning is whether the separation 
> of the closure part of the protocol from the rest 
> is valuable, or even viable given the requirement 
> for passing application data, which you are not questioning.

I'm just not dealing with the issue of 
application-data-on-protocol-signal yet.
(If that issue is resolved, will you vote 'yes'?)

But there will always be a difference between
the application messages and the protocol signals,
even if the app messages follow a business pattern
(as we both agree they should).

And yes, closure itself has a business value, for example,
knowing that you and your counter-party have agreed
on the order so you can safely move on to fulfilling it.

Or knowing that you failed to agree and must move on
to the next trading partner or method of getting
what you need to do business.

It's analogous to Robert's Rules of Order:
people may say roughly the same as a formal proposal,
but it won't become a formal decision until
it goes through the formal protocol.

Everybody can make up their own formal protocol,
but why?