[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 107 - Extension points and opacity
> Goland: It is true that your proposal would remove ambiguity but at > the cost of making abstract process definitions very fragile. > Mistakenly omitting something would end up being interpreted as > intentionally omitting something. By introducing opaque we remove that > sort of error and therefore make abstract process definitions more > robust. > > Portability of definitions is always going to be hard and every > opportunity we leave for honest mistakes will cause those mistakes to > happen. The tighter we make the definition, the less room we leave for > errors, the more likely we are to get portability. mm1: If portability is out goal in definition, how will <opaque> support that? Seems to be it will push us in the opposite direction.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]