RE: [ws-caf-editors] lastest model revision

[Mark Little <Mark.Little@arjuna.com>]

I've added a comment and removed others, but I'm happy with it. However, to 
answer your question below:

>===== Original Message From Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com> =====
>Mark, I've reviewed your changes and I have done two things: some basic
>reordering and I deleted the first paragraph under Why Nesting? The
>problem I have is that it shows contexts inside of contexts in a way
>that is different from previous email discusssions. So in the interest
>of moving forward, I suggest we work on that issue separately without
>holding up the model in other respects.
>
>At one point, I thought we were aiming at:
><ctx>
>    <protocol>foo+bar</protocol>
>    <foo data/>
>    <bar data/>
></ctx>
>
>though in the last draft we have
><ctx>
>    <context1>
>    <context2>
></ctx>
>
>Not saying it's wrong, but I don't know how to interpret that.

Just different notation for the same thing:

<context1>==<foo data/>
<context2>==<bar data/>

>
>also, to answer your three comments:
>
>1) no, I don't think that the text implies only one ALS per activity. It
>just gives an example of two separate activities that overlap.
>2) agreed, ALSes are treated as optional.
>3) for now, yes, I think we should restrict nesting to matching protocol
>types if possible (KISS). Otherwise, we're going to eat alot of cycles
>in the short term.

See new embedded comment.

Mark.

CAF model clarification v6.doc