[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
I agree that most authors will use visual tools. For the manual editing cases adding "implicit" rules will just make the document harder to read and maintain. If someone really needs this, then they'll define their own macro. Greg Ritzinger >>> Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> 6/12/2003 3:49:38 AM >>> If someone came up with a use case where in fact they write BPEL documents using an XML or text editor, and in fact use this simplification a significant number of times, then I would say that we need to support it on the basis that it helps document authors to be more productive. I have yet to see BPEL documents being authored manually on a wide scale. What we have are process authors that use visual tools exclusively, and the tool couldn't care less which syntax we use. In fact, for the tool, it's not really a simplification but an extra step to represent a sequence as a <sequence>. Since this is going to surface again, perhaps we should come up with a non-requirement to address this on a broader basis, or open up an issue along the lines of "simplifying the syntax to ease authoring of BPEL documents" and propose a resolution. arkin Satish Thatte wrote: >Frank, > >You are right that this would have to be context sensitive - in a <flow> >we already have activity+ -- Yuzo has said that his idea would only >apply where we have activity as a singleton. Another complication ;-) > >Satish > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Leymann [mailto:LEY1@de.ibm.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:53 PM >To: Satish Thatte >Cc: Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro > > >Satish, Yuzo, > >from my point of view the implicit <sequence> assumption is completely >arbitrary: Some might have parallel ordering in mind, i.e. <flow> >without >any links. > >Regards, >Frank > >Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann, Distinguished Engineer >Member, IBM Academy >IBM Software Group >----------------------------------------------------------- >Phone1........: +49-7031-16 3998 >Phone2........: +49-7056-96 5067 >Mobile .......: +49-172-731 5858 > > > > > >To: "Yuzo Fujishima" <fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com>, > <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> >cc: >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro > > >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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]