[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro)
I honestly don't think <sequence> needs to justify its existence. Concurrency with synchronization can emulate sequentiality but that is clearly a convoluted and expensive way to do the simplest kind of orchestration. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:42 PM To: Satish Thatte Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro) Satish Thatte wrote: >I believe a <sequence> activity can be replaced with a <flow >suppressJoinFailure="false"> activity with a few more caveats, to >produce equivalent control sequencing behavior. Why do you ask? > >Satish > > The whole discussion started from the comment made by Bernd "especially the second case shows, that there is no need for the sequence activity from a control flow point of few. I guess it would be good to add some comments on this in the spec." So if we nail down the difference we may want to include such an explanation in the text. arkin
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]