RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

["Alexandre Alves" <aalves@bea.com>]

Hi Alex,

 

Yeah, not a big issue at all. My suggestion would be to remove the last phrase from the 5.2 section w.r.t. exit, as that one is the most likely to change if anything ever changes at all relating to exit.

 

From:

The <exit> activity can be used to immediately terminate the behavior of a business process instance within which the <exit> activity is performed. All currently running activities MUST be terminated as soon as possible without any termination handling, fault handling, or compensation behavior.

To:

The <exit> activity can be used to immediately terminate the behavior of a business process instance within which the <exit> activity is performed.

If you agree, I can do it in my next edit. It is fine if you don't.

 

Rgds,

 

---

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Alexandre Alves
Cc: wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org; Alex Yiu
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

 

Alexandre,

Thank you for catching the <targets><sources> order problem.

For section 5.2, I have been thinking what would be a good approach to do spec text in that section for a while.

We are supposed to give a short introduction of each activity in section 5.2. But when the actual description of an activitiy is so short, then the description in 5.2 and 10 are virtually the same. <exit> is one of examples. Yes, I am open to trim the description of those simple activities in section 5.2 further. Or, we can enrich some description in section 10.

Anyhow, I don't have a strong preference here.

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu



Alexandre Alves wrote:

Hi,

 

I just finished reviewing Alex's changes. The spec is indeed much more readable, thanks Alex!

 

Just a few comments:

In section 10.2, we have the order of standard elements inverted, it should be <targets>…</targets><sources>…</sources> instead of <sources>…</sources><targets>…</targets>. (btw, this problems was already there and was not a result of Alex's modifications) I can fix this the next time I edit the spec (just posting here to get everyone's agreement).

We seem to duplicate the (verbatim) definition of the exit activity in 5.2. and 10.10. It seems that 5.2. generally has an initial explanation of some construct and section 10 follows up with the exact definition. For the exit activity, we have the same text in both places. Maybe we should just not mention exit at all in 5.2 (like we don't do for rethrow), or if we do mention, just keep the first phrase instead of the complete definition to avoid future synchronization problems between both texts.

 

Rgds,

alex

 

---

From: Mehta, Vinkesh (US - Austin) [mailto:vmehta@DELOITTE.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Alex Yiu; pyendluri@webmethods.com
Cc: Alexandre Alves; drj@us.ibm.com; wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

 

I have fixed the TOC and the formatting issue. I have checked in the modified spec in CVS.

 

I am still reviewing Alex's latest changes.

 

-Vinky

 

---

From: Mehta, Vinkesh (US - Austin)
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 9:05 AM
To: Alex Yiu; pyendluri@webmethods.com
Cc: Alexandre Alves; drj@us.ibm.com; wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

Thanks Alex.

 

  - I will review your updates.

  - Fix TOC

  - Fix any other formatting issues

 

regards,

-Vinky

 

---

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 2:09 AM
To: pyendluri@webmethods.com
Cc: Alexandre Alves; Mehta, Vinkesh (US - Austin); drj@us.ibm.com; wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org; Alex Yiu
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

Hi all,

I have just checked in my changes into CVS.

Compared with the doc that that I sent out a couple of days ago, there are a number of other minor additional changes:

• spilting the references section and update some of references (Ron's resolution)
• adding more sub-section numbers to abstract process section
• apply "observable behavior" more consistently to the Introduction section (instead of using both "observable" and "visible" in a mixed way) 

Venky, I believe you are the next one to hold the pen to fix up TOC and other format problems only in MS-Word 2003.


Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu

 

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. 

Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]