[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)
David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote: >Assaf, > >There's a very big difference between a model approach, >and the sort of interface specification I'm talking about. > >An abstraction layer contains all the programming support >you need - but based around your functional set - not the >necessarily the functional set of the target(s). > > Then I guess I missed the point. To write my functional set as far as the process is concerned is something I can do using a WSDL interface. To write someone else's function set as far as my process is concerned is something I can also do using WSDL. Or not, but then I won't know what service they offer than I can use ;-) Mobility, of the ability to execute in different environments, is given since the definition is based on the interface. It is not based on a particular protocol or end-point. So a process that uses service X with protocol Y in one environment would just as well use service A with protocol B in another environment. As long as it understands what the communication pattern is. arkin >This gives you better interoperability - and ability to support >lots of different environments thru one common interface, >and publish bindings which bring you in a wider audience. > >Adopting one flavour wholesale is not only a 'cheap fix', >but limits you drastically long term. > >Thanks, DW. >================================================= > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]