Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Title:

I tend to agree as well. The benefits of  implicit rules (skipping one or
two wrapper tags) have the potential to create confusion and non-interoperable
tools (e.g. one tool needs to process definitions generated by another)..

Sadiq, Waqar wrote:
> I also completely support this view.  I find the need and the scenario of
> manually handcrafting BPEL documents a little hard to define and justify.
> "Process" in itself is at the level of abstraction that is the above the
> level of "the hacker".  So, in reality, I personally do not think that the
> BPEL document will be produced and maintained by anything other than visual
> editors.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Waqar Sadiq
>  
> EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant
> MS: H3-4C-22
> 5400 Legacy Drive
> Plano, Texas 75024
>  
> phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
> e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
> fax: +01-972-605-4071
> _______________________________________________
>  
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ritzinger [mailto:GRitzinger@novell.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:55 AM
> To: arkin@intalio.com; satisht@microsoft.com
> Cc: fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com; LEY1@de.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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 
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org