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

[Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>]

that was fast.

Mark Little wrote:

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.