RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote

[Maciej Szefler <mbs@fivesight.com>]

+1
-maciej

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 15:20 +0100, Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:
> Hello,
>  
> I agree also with Paco, Prasad and Yaron, there is not much use in the
> current Partner definiton and it looks like abstract BPEL is not going
> to be a collaboration planning tool, so we can remove it that will
> reduce confusion.
>  
> Bernd
>  
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
>         Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:07 AM
>         To: wsbpeltc
>         Cc: Francisco Curbera
>         Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote
>         
>         
>         I originally asked that we hold off until the abstract BPEL
>         issue comes to a closer as this seemed of most relevance for
>         abstract BPEL (externally visible behavior use case in
>         particular). All external interaction dependencies w.r.t. a
>         collaborating party grouped together, so that developer of the
>         process on the collaborating side can easily see the all
>         interaction points with the processes that it needs to mesh
>         with. 
>         
>         However, at this point I don't see much utility for this
>         myself unless we specify how the users are expected to make
>         use of this clearly. I agree with Paco that better to remove
>         things that have no direct utility to the BPEL users.
>         
>         Regards, Prasad
>         
>         -------- Original Message --------  
>                               Subject: 
>         Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 -
>         Proposal for vote
>                                  Date: 
>         Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:13:05 -0500
>                                  From: 
>         Francisco Curbera
>         <curbera@us.ibm.com>
>                                    To: 
>         Danny van der Rijn
>         <dannyv@tibco.com>
>                                    CC: 
>         wsbpeltc
>         <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
>         
>         I was of the same opinion as you (that partner elements may
>         have a use in B2B modeling for example) but the truth is we
>         don't know enough about their use to justify their inclusion
>         in the final spec. Better err on the side of simplicity.
>         Paco
>                                                                                                                                              
>         From: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>                     
>         To: wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                                         
>         Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote                                   
>         Date: 12/20/2004 05:34 PM                                                                                                                
>                                                                                                                                                 
>         While partners have no syntactic or semantic value in either abstract or
>         executable BPEL (nor have they ever), they still retain semantic meaning
>         at the modeling level.  I don't actually recall a discussion about
>         removing them, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about doing so, and wonder
>         what others think on the issue.
>         
>         Danny
>         
>         Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
>         
>         > I had previously moved that we remove partners (not partnerLinks) from
>         > the BPEL specification. I had been asked to table that proposal until
>         > we had a better understanding of what role partners might play in
>         > abstract processes. At the F2F the general consensus was that we now
>         > have a good enough understanding of what abstract processes are likely
>         > to look like in BPEL that we can safely conclude that partners will
>         > not play a significant role. Therefore I was asked to re-raise my
>         > original proposal.
>         >
>         > I therefore move that we remove partners from the BPEL specification.
>         >
>         >     Thanks,
>         >
>         >         Yaron
>         
>         >   
-- 
Maciej Szefler <mbs@fivesight.com>

This is a digitally signed message part