Peter,
It would be helpful
to follow the original convention of ending all signals from a nested scope
with ‘ed – by this convention “Fault” would be “faulted”. Thus all these
signals look informative as opposed to
imperative.
Satish
From:
Furniss, Peter
[mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004
7:19 AM
To:
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - RE:
[wsbpel] appendix C revision
Forgot to set the
title so my own scripts will link the thread. Please reply to this
thread, not my original one.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Furniss, Peter
Sent: 18 August 2004 14:57
To:
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] appendix C
revision
At last, the proposed text for
appendix C from Alastair and myself. Thanks also to Tony Fletcher for
comments.
The bit that gave us pause was
the introduction - the difference between a notionally monolithic BPEL
implementation and a general distributed case becomes questionable if in
fact the BPEL implementation is federated - especially when, e.g., different
flows are running in separate processes that could fail
independently.
Peter
------------------------------------------
Peter
Furniss
Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
web: http://www.choreology.com
email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:
+44 870 739 0066
mobile: +44 7951 536168