[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes
Hello Danny, I like this. I suggest to have in fact 3 artifacts, a BPEL base type lib Schema Document, which is included by the executable and abstract schema. The executable and abstract schema then only need to redefine or restrict/extend those existing types. I suggest a 3 way relationship, becuase I think it is easier to track than a 2 way (i.e. would u use the abstrac ptocess to include the executable or vice versa). I dont think it is a good idea for maintenance, to habe 2 copies of the schema with different definitions. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Bernd Eckenfels Chief Architect -- SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256 mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de -----Original Message----- From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:53 PM To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue24 i submitted this issue a while ago, and there hasn't been any discussion. phil pointed out to me that it's been languishing. the statement of the issue is simple: "Separate schemas for the executable vs. the abstract forms of BPEL would allow validation by schema, rather than by hand-coded rules based on spec verbiage. " consider this a call for discussion. if there's no discussion in the next 3 weeks, i'll propose a vote on the issue one week before our next meeting. danny To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]