Re: [ebxml-bp] 1/5/2004: Late Binding ....

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

David RR Webber wrote:

>Monica,
>
>I do NOT see any conflict here with BPEL!  Nor can BPEL claim
>to have an exclusive on something - likewise BPSS of course.
>  
>
mm2: The main point of my response Dave is that you are mixing BPEL 
concepts in BPSS. You talked about a controlling party - in BPSS the 
relationship is peer-to-peer. Thanks

>>Webber: .....It's going to take some careful wording to get this all
>>tied down neatly.
>>We start from the binary collaboration and how that is defined by the
>>CPA, and
>>that context parameters and outcomes are known.  Then on to multi-party -
>>where one party has to own the process - and create agreements with the
>>participants.  Then - the owner will manage the controlling BPSS - that
>>may involve sub-BPSS interactions.  Each participant in a sub-BPSS will
>>know what their outcomes are - and have a CPA.  Overall - only the owner
>>of the master BPSS will know what that does - and they could have dynamic
>>runtime branching - but even they will want that locked to a
>>    
>>
>pre-determined path - it will not self-modify!  The control mechanisms are versioning and
>locked registry artifacts.  So if anything changes - the BPSS should
>treat that as a Fail condition - and react accordingly.
>
>mm1: David, the one-party control/view is part of BPEL rather than BPSS.
>I agree that the most relevant and known (pre-determined) paths will be
>defined
>to allow those to be used. We do need to speak further about the
>  
>
>boundaries
>  
>
>>of BPSS and CPA, and we do have a work item to do so. This is particularly
>>relevant as we broaden the BPSS functionality. Let's stay focused on
>>BPSS; we
>>have ample participation to ensure we can attain loose coupling with CPA
>>    
>>
>and
>  
>
>>ebMS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>