RE: [wsbpel-uc] Portable Execution or Portable Source? [ changed the subject, was Conf call today.. ]

["Sazi Temel" <sazi@bea.com>]

I think the issue 35, 42, and 9 at least partially cover the same topic - I assume the portability issue will come up during discussions on those issues, so we may not need to create a use case after all for this issue as I suggested earlier..

.Sazi

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:07 PM
To: Sazi Temel; 'bpel usecase'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Portable Execution or Portable Source? [
changed the subject, was Conf call today.. ]



>Edwin
>Temel: I agree with what you recap (what Frank L. stated). This use case is just exposing some of the less clear goals of BPEL.
>
>Monica,
>Yes, it may be related several related issues already open as you pointed out.
>
>.Sazi
>
mm1: Sazi, has this side issue been raised about portable execution or 
source and relate it where applicable to issues such as 35, 42, 9 (given 
your focus).
Thanks.

>  
>
>>Khodabakchian: Sazi,
>>
>>I think that Frank L. stated it well in one of his previous emails: the goal
>>of BPEL over time is to create a congruent view between the design
>>representation of a process, it executable representation and the
>>monitoring/reporting representation. Some views might have more details but
>>the overlapping views should be isomorphic.
>>
>>This is not black and white: the closer we are to that goal, the better of
>>we are. Over time, as we get more deployment under our belt and better
>>understand the patterns, we should expect that the language will evolve to
>>continuously get closer. A little bit like HTML.
>>    
>>