RE: [wsbpel] Issue 40 - Proposal to Vote

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

I'm not quite sure why these cleanup resolutions are so personal :-)

But, on substance, my reply to Yaron included:

"I still think it's a bit confusing though. I've just sort of got used
to it now."

and it wasn't quite that I agreed to the issue being closed, rather I
didn't mind the proposal to close being made. 


I still think it is confusing, and also rather restricting in terms of
potential extension. What if now or in the future there is another
variable used in invoke, receive etc., as in the solution we proposed to
issue 55, where the context comes from a variable - it could equally be
other additional information of some kind. It seems odd to name the
attribute by what it is (a variable) rather than what it is for (a
message).

Am I alone in thinking this odd ?  If I am, fine.

In fact, I find the input, output rather muddly too - on invoke the
input message is the one we are sending out. Maybe I've just been
thinking protocols for too long.

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
> Sent: 19 January 2004 23:18
> To: Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 40 - Proposal to Vote
> 
> 
> Proposed Resolution to Issue 40 - Close with no change to the 
> specification.
> 
> Rationale - The issue was originally opened by Peter Furniss 
> based on a complaint by Alastair Green. I talked with Peter 
> and he agreed that he has gotten used to the naming and so 
> has no objections to the issue being closed with no action.
> 
> 		Yaron
>