OASIS Mailing List Archives
View the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using
MarkMail
.
This list only
All OASIS lists
Help:
OASIS Mailing Lists Help
|
MarkMail Help
wsbpel
211 messages in this archive
(listed by date, most recent first)
|
Thread Index
|
List Home
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 1 Dec 2003 01:52:18 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 30 Nov 2003 03:57:19 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 30 Nov 2003 00:37:27 -0000
Issue - 62 - Proposal to Vote
From
"Dieter Roller" <ROL@de.ibm.com> on 29 Nov 2003 08:20:06 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 87 - Optional SOAP Headers
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 27 Nov 2003 19:32:32 -0000
Issue - 87 - Optional SOAP Headers
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 27 Nov 2003 15:31:03 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 27 Nov 2003 01:36:19 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 27 Nov 2003 01:05:17 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 27 Nov 2003 00:44:03 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] hotels for the F2F
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 26 Nov 2003 19:18:45 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Addressing Interoperability / Portability -SOAP 1.2
From
"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> on 26 Nov 2003 19:12:02 -0000
hotels for the F2F
From
Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> on 26 Nov 2003 17:35:49 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 26 Nov 2003 15:35:13 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 26 Nov 2003 15:15:29 -0000
RE: Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 26 Nov 2003 10:10:02 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 26 Nov 2003 09:18:08 -0000
RE: Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
"Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com> on 26 Nov 2003 08:50:39 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 25 Nov 2003 21:49:44 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 25 Nov 2003 21:41:54 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 25 Nov 2003 21:31:22 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
"Edwin Khodabakchian" <edwink@collaxa.com> on 25 Nov 2003 21:28:44 -0000
Issue - 2- Why I think we should close Issue 2
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 25 Nov 2003 21:11:21 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 25 Nov 2003 20:34:23 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 25 Nov 2003 19:57:19 -0000
New Issue - double meaning for supressJoinFailures
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 25 Nov 2003 19:27:31 -0000
RE: Issue 74 - proposal for vote
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 25 Nov 2003 19:21:56 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Addressing Interoperability / Portability - SOAP 1.2
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 25 Nov 2003 18:24:47 -0000
Subject lines of messages about issues
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 25 Nov 2003 18:16:56 -0000
Issue - 86 - Addressing Interoperability / Portability - SOAP 1.2
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 25 Nov 2003 18:06:37 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 25 Nov 2003 17:17:35 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 25 Nov 2003 16:51:36 -0000
Issue #50 - Proposal to Vote
From
"Dieter Roller" <ROL@de.ibm.com> on 25 Nov 2003 14:46:45 -0000
Groups - wsbpel_issues_list.html uploaded
From
peter.furniss@choreology.com on 25 Nov 2003 12:12:28 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Edwin Khodabakchian" <edwink@collaxa.com> on 25 Nov 2003 03:48:20 -0000
Implementation subgroup plans for Face to face meeting
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 25 Nov 2003 03:42:36 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 25 Nov 2003 03:40:52 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 25 Nov 2003 03:09:53 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote (hopefully the final text)
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 24 Nov 2003 23:31:41 -0000
Hotels for the upcoming F2F (12/9-12/10)
From
"John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com> on 24 Nov 2003 20:08:35 -0000
F2F Hotel
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 24 Nov 2003 19:38:30 -0000
New Issue - Addressing Interoperability / Portability - SOAP 1.2
From
"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> on 24 Nov 2003 19:30:10 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 24 Nov 2003 18:50:02 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 24 Nov 2003 18:43:45 -0000
Issue 77 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 24 Nov 2003 16:52:34 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 24 Nov 2003 16:35:25 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue # 62 Proposal to Vote
From
"Dieter Roller" <ROL@de.ibm.com> on 24 Nov 2003 15:40:45 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue # 62 Proposal to Vote
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 24 Nov 2003 14:47:32 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 24 Nov 2003 13:12:32 -0000
Issue # 62 Proposal to Vote
From
"Dieter Roller" <ROL@de.ibm.com> on 24 Nov 2003 08:37:46 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] specification working draft uploaded - comments welcome
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 23 Nov 2003 22:48:12 -0000
Fw: Agenda for next week - is it ok?
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 23 Nov 2003 20:27:11 -0000
specification working draft uploaded - comments welcome
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 21:43:44 -0000
Groups - wsbpel-specification-draft-Nov1703.htm uploaded
From
pyendluri@webmethods.com on 21 Nov 2003 21:17:56 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 20:35:11 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 21 Nov 2003 20:29:10 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 20:18:19 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 19:54:11 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:59:18 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:46:21 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:43:01 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:39:31 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:16:35 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:10:34 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 16:06:12 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 21 Nov 2003 15:16:43 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 03:28:56 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 21 Nov 2003 03:04:04 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 21 Nov 2003 02:49:24 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 21 Nov 2003 02:49:23 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 20 Nov 2003 18:38:34 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 20 Nov 2003 18:24:39 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 20 Nov 2003 16:53:14 -0000
Issue - 85 - Proposal to vote
From
"Dieter Koenig1" <dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com> on 20 Nov 2003 16:40:24 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 20 Nov 2003 06:39:15 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 20 Nov 2003 00:59:04 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> on 20 Nov 2003 00:53:27 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 20 Nov 2003 00:20:38 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> on 19 Nov 2003 23:28:42 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 22:46:04 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 22:31:22 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 21:26:48 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 19 Nov 2003 21:18:59 -0000
Leave of absence
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 19 Nov 2003 21:07:56 -0000
Groups - Minutes of Conference Call November 12 .doc uploaded
From
drj@us.ibm.com on 19 Nov 2003 21:02:08 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:57:41 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:47:38 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:46:30 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:38:09 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:31:43 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:26:21 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 20:01:23 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:54:33 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:47:24 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:38:22 -0000
Fw: CALL FOR PAPERS: BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT FORUM 2004
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:34:08 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:13:55 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Rajesh Pradhan" <rajesh@iopsis.com> on 19 Nov 2003 19:10:24 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 18:59:01 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 19 Nov 2003 17:52:05 -0000
RE: Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 19 Nov 2003 10:23:16 -0000
RE: Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 10:12:44 -0000
RE: Issue - 77 - Optional Headers
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 19 Nov 2003 10:12:43 -0000
Issue - 77 - Optional Headers
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 19 Nov 2003 01:52:02 -0000
Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 19 Nov 2003 01:51:56 -0000
"Scientific workflow services" workshop
From
"Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk> on 18 Nov 2003 14:06:04 -0000
Groups - scenarios11_17.zip uploaded
From
rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com on 18 Nov 2003 05:48:57 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 17 Nov 2003 16:52:29 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 17 Nov 2003 16:47:34 -0000
Issue - 85 - Multiple links with the same source and target
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 17 Nov 2003 00:31:11 -0000
Does better Nath lead to better process
From
"Jon Pyke" <jpyke@dial.pipex.com> on 16 Nov 2003 11:16:18 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 16 Nov 2003 04:42:34 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 14 Nov 2003 20:52:21 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 14 Nov 2003 20:40:52 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com> on 14 Nov 2003 15:27:44 -0000
Background to Workflow/Pi Paper: Response to Jon
From
Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org> on 14 Nov 2003 11:08:19 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
"Frank Leymann" <LEY1@de.ibm.com> on 14 Nov 2003 08:04:39 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 14 Nov 2003 07:47:03 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 75 - Do we need locally declared partnerLinks?
From
Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> on 13 Nov 2003 03:49:03 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 12 Nov 2003 19:42:53 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 12 Nov 2003 18:19:10 -0000
Please RSVP for the upcoming F2F Meeting in Melbourne, FL
From
"John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com> on 12 Nov 2003 17:43:16 -0000
Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote (hopefully the final text)
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 12 Nov 2003 17:15:53 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] v2.1 - Workflow is just a Pi process - new paper from CSC, as PDF download
From
"Jon Pyke" <jpyke@dial.pipex.com> on 12 Nov 2003 16:36:52 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] TIME Difference - TC call is on standard time now!
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 12 Nov 2003 16:31:53 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 12 Nov 2003 16:14:58 -0000
TIME Difference - TC call is on standard time now!
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 12 Nov 2003 15:33:34 -0000
v2.1 - Workflow is just a Pi process - new paper from CSC, as PDF download
From
Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org> on 12 Nov 2003 14:11:19 -0000
Groups - wsbpel_issues_list.html uploaded
From
peter.furniss@choreology.com on 12 Nov 2003 12:53:10 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 74 - request for discussion
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 11 Nov 2003 21:43:56 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 11 Nov 2003 21:36:02 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 11 Nov 2003 21:34:02 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue 79 - Proposed Resolution
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 11 Nov 2003 21:30:50 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> on 11 Nov 2003 21:23:45 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 11 Nov 2003 21:20:22 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> on 11 Nov 2003 21:04:23 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 11 Nov 2003 20:59:25 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> on 11 Nov 2003 20:46:30 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 11 Nov 2003 20:45:17 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> on 11 Nov 2003 20:31:49 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 11 Nov 2003 19:05:43 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 11 Nov 2003 18:30:08 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 11 Nov 2003 16:18:39 -0000
Issue 79 - Proposed Resolution
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 11 Nov 2003 16:18:38 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 11 Nov 2003 10:06:26 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 11 Nov 2003 10:06:13 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 10 Nov 2003 22:15:11 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> on 10 Nov 2003 22:08:12 -0000
RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 10 Nov 2003 21:49:08 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
"Edwin Khodabakchian" <edwink@collaxa.com> on 10 Nov 2003 20:25:03 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 10 Nov 2003 17:58:03 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 10 Nov 2003 17:50:00 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com> on 10 Nov 2003 15:47:40 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> on 10 Nov 2003 01:35:02 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com> on 8 Nov 2003 19:10:51 -0000
Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 8 Nov 2003 12:09:11 -0000
Issue 76 - Proposal For Motion
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 8 Nov 2003 00:30:35 -0000
Agenda for Nov. 12 TC conference call
From
Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com> on 7 Nov 2003 22:27:49 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 7 Nov 2003 18:52:37 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 7 Nov 2003 18:42:26 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
"Edwin Khodabakchian" <edwink@collaxa.com> on 7 Nov 2003 18:36:39 -0000
Sub-functions: some thoughts
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 7 Nov 2003 17:48:08 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 7 Nov 2003 17:30:09 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 7 Nov 2003 16:34:33 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 7 Nov 2003 16:15:16 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 6 Nov 2003 20:13:43 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 6 Nov 2003 19:29:16 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 6 Nov 2003 19:19:40 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 6 Nov 2003 06:14:14 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 5 Nov 2003 23:57:41 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 5 Nov 2003 21:46:52 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 5 Nov 2003 21:24:18 -0000
Issue - 84 - Require Static Analysis Description & List
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 5 Nov 2003 19:22:51 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com> on 4 Nov 2003 21:33:29 -0000
Groups - Minutes WS BPEL TC Oct 29 2003.doc uploaded
From
drj@us.ibm.com on 4 Nov 2003 21:12:54 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 4 Nov 2003 19:05:30 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 4 Nov 2003 18:59:07 -0000
[no subject]
From
Unknown on Tue Nov 04 13:58:53 2003
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values notdefined in portType
From
Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com> on 4 Nov 2003 18:54:07 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 4 Nov 2003 18:46:05 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 4 Nov 2003 18:32:57 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 4 Nov 2003 18:20:54 -0000
[no subject]
From
Unknown on Tue Nov 04 12:58:44 2003
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 4 Nov 2003 17:55:21 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 4 Nov 2003 17:23:30 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 4 Nov 2003 16:52:23 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 4 Nov 2003 05:52:30 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 3 Nov 2003 20:45:22 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2 - Subfunctions and XPATHS
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 3 Nov 2003 18:45:24 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 2- requirements for a sub function solution
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 3 Nov 2003 18:23:55 -0000
Issue - 2- Compensation and sub-functions
From
"Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> on 3 Nov 2003 18:10:56 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 3 Nov 2003 17:49:21 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 3 Nov 2003 17:24:38 -0000
Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss
From
"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> on 3 Nov 2003 16:56:09 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 3 Nov 2003 16:22:29 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values notdefined in portType
From
"Frank Leymann" <LEY1@de.ibm.com> on 3 Nov 2003 15:27:30 -0000
Issue - 83 - Garbage Collecting Compensation Handlers
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 3 Nov 2003 14:54:54 -0000
Issue - 82 - description of abstract processes in spec
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 3 Nov 2003 14:54:53 -0000
Issue - 81 - Are start activities that aren't createInstance activities legal?
From
ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com> on 3 Nov 2003 14:54:53 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 3 Nov 2003 06:16:39 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 3 Nov 2003 04:46:04 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 2 Nov 2003 21:46:45 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 2 Nov 2003 21:38:45 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 2 Nov 2003 19:10:03 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 2 Nov 2003 18:29:48 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] Do we need the createInstance attribute?
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 2 Nov 2003 07:34:49 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> on 2 Nov 2003 07:20:37 -0000
[no subject]
From
Unknown on Sat Nov 01 21:58:16 2003
Issue - 80 - Clarify Fault Handler Selection When Fault Data is Absent
From
"Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com> on 2 Nov 2003 02:20:38 -0000
RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType
From
"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> on 1 Nov 2003 19:21:14 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 2 - A subfunction proposal
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 1 Nov 2003 18:59:58 -0000
Re: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values notdefined in portType
From
Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> on 1 Nov 2003 18:37:35 -0000
Mail converted by
MHonArc
2.5.0b2