[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 23 - proposed resolution (add rationale) forTC
Eckenfels. Bernd wrote: >Hello, > >we agreed in the TC, that my proposal (adding a rationale specifically to the case of flow vs. sequence) is too short sighted (because there might be some other places where a activity can be emulated by a more general one. > >The idea was, to have a general rationale wording, with the case sequence vs. flow as just one simple sample. I think the following suggestion is not the final perfect wording, but the right place to clearify: > > ># 12 Structured Activities ># ... ># * Nondeterministic choice based on external events is provided by pick. ># ># > The set of activities in BPEL4WS is not intended to be the minimum required set. ># > There are cases where one activity can replace another type. For example ># > the sequence activity used to structure sequential processing may be emulated by a ># > more complex flow, which has links, to ensure sequential processing. ># ># Structured activities... > mm1: Bernd, Perhaps we should answer questions such as when a <sequence> or <flow> is used. It may not be a question of complexity but more so a usage preference. Is it not true that each can achieve the same goal? I believe so. Two usage examples should be sufficient.