Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Title:

Hmm, I believe the argument is against implicit shortcuts where absence of 
wrappers will imply their presence in a context sensitive fashion.  

However I am inclined to think inlining of compensation handlers within the
scope of an <invoke> as a useful shortcut, even though I would not
be against eliminating it :)

Ugo Corda wrote:
> >From section 13.3.1:
>
> "there is a special shortcut for the invoke activity to inline a compensation handler rather than explicitly using an immediately enclosing scope".
>
> Ugo
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:13 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda
> > Cc: edwink@collaxa.com; Satish Thatte; Yuzo Fujishima;
> > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro
> >
> >
> > Ugo Corda wrote:
> >
> > > I agree. If we decide that sequence shortcuts are not good, 
> > >     
> > then we should be consistent throughout the spec and 
> > eliminate existing shortcuts. Or we should provide a 
> > rationale for why existing shortcuts like compensation are 
> > the only good ones.
> > > Ugo
> > >  
> > >
> > >     
> > Where is the shortcut in compensation?
> >
> > arkin
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org