Re: [wsbpel] Implicit <sequence> macro

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

+1 on both accounts.

arkin

Glenn Mi wrote:

>Agree with Ron and Edwin.
>
>I have some experiance with manually authoring BEPL. The most difficult part
>seems to be to make sure the references to the WSDL artifacts are correct.
>In my
>opinion, if the programmer can handle the complexities of namespaces,
>partnerLinks, etc.,
>he/she should not have any problem following any given BPEL syntax.
>
>Introducing anomalies for the sake of saving a few key strokes will actually
>cause more problems, like compicating the debugger, etc.
>
>I would be happy to see that the faultHandler shortcut for <invoke> be
>removed.
>
>Glenn Mi
>
>
>
>  
>
>>I think Ugo was refering to the <invoke> activity, which has a short-cut
>>form for providing a compensation handler. Page 72 explains that it is a
>>shortcut to avoid explicitly defining a scope.
>>
>>These seems an odd optimization, to save a minor amount of typing. The
>>authors were perhaps envisioning BPEL process designers equipped only
>>with vi?
>>
>>-Ron
>>    
>>