OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts


    I take it you place a heavy value of the existing wording of the specification. I find this curious; other than saving the TC some time, what other benefits are there to preserving the submitted spec substantially "as is"? More broadly, what the role of this TC? Chiefly editorial?


Ugo Corda wrote:
I was referring to Ugo's request that we seek to prove that the WS approach to modelling subprocesses  
couldn't handle all use cases. I regard this approach as biased, since it puts an unreasonable burden  
of proof on one side of the discussion, but not the other. 
Sorry, this has nothing to do with being biased. The burden of proof is asymmetric because the problem with start with is asymmetric. In other words, we are not starting with two possible approaches both of which would have to be developed from scratch. We are starting with one approach being already available (except for possibly minor modifications), and a second one that would require to be developed.
If you are saying that the existing approach is not sufficient, and are asking us to do additional work, I think it's very legitimate to request use cases that show how that is so and why we should go through the extra work. (You are certainly free not to give such use cases, but I am equally free not to vote in favor of your proposal if I don't find it convincing).

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]