[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
rania- if by "publically visible behavior" you mean that if i publish my BPEL file ("publicly visible") then i would agree. but i think that it's a somewhat useless definition at that point. my understanding of "publicly visible behavior" was that it was the behavior that one can observe from an engine that is running stuff that i can't look at. more like the definitions leading up to the observable conformance definitions. in which case i disagree that this covers the templating (bad word in this case, maybe?) area of use cases that i would submit that yaron's example falls into. danny rkhalaf wrote: > Hi, > > I think that "publicly visible behavior" covers both templating and > observable stuff because it's the behavior that you make visible to > the recipient of the file. In case of templating, that is the > template-filling-person and he/she sees the part of the behavior that > is expressed in this process. In the case of giving a description of > your behavior to a third party (to implement, or to know how to > interact with you etc) it's a complete description of what you will be > doing. > > Perhaps later in the spec we can have a use cases section similar to > the one in the circulated doc with templating and observable behavior > scenarios explicitly mentioned. Could also be touched on in 107, to > say "for example, in a templating scenario one would use opaque as an > explicit fill point" . > > -Rania > > Nickolas Kavantzas wrote: > >> Satish Thatte wrote: >> >> >>> Danny, >>> >>> I think your description of the challenge response metaphor for >>> proving conformance represents a misunderstanding of the intent >>> (brute force search among lots of randomly generated possibilities >>> was not the idea). Moreover, the templating case is explicitly >>> supported in Rania's paper I believe. Rania and I will address that >>> separately. >> >> >> >> There are two definitions of an abstract process in the first page of >> the document. >> >> The first one is the first paragraph of the doc. >> >> The second one is A on the 'Semantics of AbsProcesses' section. >> I am assuming that this is a potential use of an Abstract Process. So >> the text should then be: >> A. An abstract process may describe the publicly visible behavior of >> the services exposed by the process....(rest of the text in A) >> >> The other potential use of an Abstract Process is for 'templating' >> and I would assume that this should be included in >> this section too as B (put the text for that). >> >> >> -- >> Nick >> >> >>> >>> But I am very curious about the specific details your customers >>> would want to omit while still preserving the meaningfulness of the >>> "process IP" they would be selling. Do you have a list of features >>> that ought to be allowed for omission? >>> >>> Satish >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] >>> Sent: Thu 9/23/2004 8:57 PM >>> To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; >>> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] >>> >>> you don't see that every day. i remembered the attachment, but >>> forgot the inline text. >>> >>> the enclosed document is my quick reaction to the abstract >>> presentation from yesterday. >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman >>> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:52:21 -0700 >>> From: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> <mailto:dannyv@tibco.com> >>> To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com >>> CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, >>> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >>> References: <41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com> >>> <mailto:41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com> >>> >>> rkhalaf wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> As promised, here is the abstract process strawman document I >>> have been putting together. This work aspired to define a consistent >>> view of abstract processes and their use as the basis for >>> continuted discussion and concrete proposals/resolutions. >>> >>> According to the Agenda, tomorrow or Thursday will be when >>> the abstract proc stuff will be discussed. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Rania >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from >>> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >>> roster of the OASIS TC), go to >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. >>> >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]