[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL?
but surely the best way to deal with this is to raise an issue or introduce a new requirement. Thats where the pros and cons can be discussed. In the particular case of correllations, I think the spec gives enough rationale. Martin. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:59 AM > To: Greg Ritzinger; ygoland@bea.com; Gnosis_@compuserve.com; > martin.chapman@oracle.com > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL? > > > At least it would be very useful to have a document on rationales > which describes why certain things are done in one particular way > out of other possible alternatives. > > Just to give an example, BPEL's current correlation mechanism is > based on message contents (see CorrelationSets). It could be done > instead using a correlationID abstract from actual message > contents (and in fact it seems that the current spec hints at > that as a future development based on WS-Addressing). What is the > rationale for the current choice? What are the pros and cons > compared to other solutions? etc. > > Ugo > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Ritzinger [mailto:GRitzinger@novell.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:11 AM > > To: ygoland@bea.com; Gnosis_@compuserve.com; martin.chapman@oracle.com > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL? > > > > > > > > If we are to review, fix and possibly change the BPEL spec, then I > > believe we need its companion requirements spec. It would be nice to > > know why something was put into BPEL before we attempt to change or > > remove it. > > > > Greg > > > > >>> "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> 6/12/2003 5:32:15 PM > > >>> > > IMHO the requirements are pretty simple; review the 1.1 spec, fix any > > bugs, > > resolve ambiguities, and > > if you want new stuff or if you want to make radical changes propose > > new > > requirements. > > I trust the originators of the spec itself to have done the > > "meta" requirements exercise, for which BPEL4WS 1.1 is the result. > > > > Martin. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness > > [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:34 AM > > > To: Yaron Y. Goland > > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Human editable BPEL? > > > > > > > > > Yaron, > > > > > > There's another aspect to this - BPEL is it seems primarily > > > intended to be used internally - with only a subset of the logic > > > being shared externally. > > > > > > But what if that logic (that you built in your IDE GUI) is not > > > readable - or causes undesirable results - in the IDE GUI > > > of Product X - used by your partner? Or your partners > > > BPEL fragment causes bad results on your system? But > > > the models look just lovely! > > > > > > You need to look at the raw XML to figure out why - and more > > > to the point - interoperablity between products requires a > > > simpler subset. > > > > > > Broken record - if we get back to the requirements - and if > > > interoperability in this way is a key requirement - then > > > simpler syntax, and also levels of conformance, are the > > > way to go. > > > > > > Alternately you could just duck this whole issue by using > > > something like BPSS to do the external coupling across > > > processes. > > > > > > But we're still waiting for that unnamed graduate student to > > > produce for us the definative list of requirements - so we > > > can be crystal clear on all this. What was his name again? > > > > > > Thanks, DW. > > > =================================================== > > > Message text written by "Yaron Y. Goland" > > > > > > > I remember in the late 1980s when everyone argued that source > > > code was dead > > > and all programs would be written using UIs. > > > > > > I remember the early 1990s when everyone argued that no one would > > ever > > > directly author HTML. > > > > > > I also remember the late 1990s when everyone (myself included =( > > )argued > > > that it didn't matter if XML was human editable since everyone would > > use > > > tools. > > > > > > It's funny how often everyone is wrong. > > > > > > Just a thought, > > > Yaron > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]