Re: [wsbpel] Q: guidelines for reliabilityA

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove
>We have two very different cases when we discuss exposing a service 
within the intranet, and exposing one to partners over the internet. A 
CPA is a very useful thing in the context of a B2B trading partner 
agreement, while it certainly is overkill (and very annoying) for 
internal services. We ought to support both styles, preferrably in a 
fashion that does require explicit incorporation of them into the standard.
<<<<<<<<

Ron,

If I may say so this is a typical techie view here ; -)

Most managers of large enterprises would welcome knowing
more formally what is happening at an intra-department level,
and being able to catalogue and manage that.  

Sure for a small deployment CPA in all its glory is a potentially
heavy footprint - but not so heavy as BPEL itself is, eh? ; -)

So let's not get confused here.  The approach for intranet 
applications - of having a standard "canned" BPEL config' 
of a CPA - makes the footprint very light IMHO.

It also ensures that we "answer the mail" formally for all
the QoS parameters and metrics that CPP / CPA provides
and gives customers the re-assurance that their BPEL
process connections are managed.

As I noted before - if you embed this stuff in a solid GUI - 
suddenly most of it is defaults - and the users really do not
have to provide much beyond obvious eBusiness 
connection related details.

Cheers, DW.