RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Yuzo,

If we expected people to directly author processes at this level
something like this would be attractive, but do you really expect that?

Satish

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:15 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

Hi,

I would like to propose what may be called "implicit sequence".

Implicit sequence "macro":
If multiple activities are placed in a process definition
where only one activity is allowed per se, assume there is an 
implicit sequence activity that contains the activities.

Example:

Regard
  <scope>
   <receive/>
   <invoke/>
   <reply/>
  </scope>
as
  <scope>
   <sequence>     <!-- implicit sequence -->
    <receive/>
    <invoke/>
    <reply/>
   </sequence>
  </scope>

Pros:
* More concise description.

Cons:
* ?

What do you think?

Yuzo Fujishima
NEC Corporation


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org