Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Edwin,

    I am coming to the same conclusion, but from the opposite direction! 
When I first read Danny's proposal, back in August last year, my biggest 
objection was that it was so DOM-like. Upon reflection, and digesting 
the recent discussion here, I'd say that I am ready to withdraw that 
objection. It does look to be a minimal effort, and without danger of 
starting down the slippery slope that Alex rightly warns us about. The 
benefits of having greater interoperability baked into the standard 
will, IMO, more than outweigh the added costs to engine implementers.

Cheers,
-Ron

Edwin Khodabakchian wrote:

>Yaron,
>
>I used to be on your side of the fence. But I think that Danny and Alex have
>convinced me that support for the DOM API is a minimal effort and would
>greatly enhance the interoperability of BPEL process across implementations.
>[Plus we are not inventing anything...just reflecting existing DOM API and
>making them declaratively accessible].
>
>Could you please clarify why you think that XUPDATE would make the
>Danny/Alex proposal instant legacy?
>
>Also could you please clarify how you envision a companion language
>addressing simple assignments?
>
>Best,
>
>Edwin
>
>  
>