[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote
+1 - the sub group had no such restrictions on its chater so why add them in now? >-----Original Message----- >From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] >Sent: 13 October 2004 19:28 >To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com >Cc: ygoland@bea.com; Martin Chapman; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote > > >rkhalaf wrote: > >> Hi Monica, >> >> The proposal in (1) makes abstract BPEL's syntax a strict superset of >> executable BPEL. This is not what is in the specification. >> >> The issue 82 is to clarify what abstract bpel is (mainly wordsmithing >> as the issue states) and to have a better definition not to change >> what it is or how it is. The other issues are being used to do that >> such as 107 etc .. Changing structure goes under rearchitecting. >> >mm1: This restriction was not a part of the subgroup discussion, and >clearly was not placed on the scope of the recent TC >participation until >you specified it. Why did the subgroup spend 5+ months trying >to define >it if the boundary was the specification as a gate? To coin >Satish, this >is 'false economy.' Thank you. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]