[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Resolution to issue 10 - Implicit compensation Handler
Yaron Goland wrote: >I think the current mechanism specified in the spec is about as complex as >we can expect most users to handle. Any additional complexity will benefit a >relatively small group of people at the cost of confusing everyone else. > >I can, however, imagine certain communities having a well defined and >compelling need for a different kind of default compensation handler. This >kind of focused extensibility problem is something I expect to be very >common in BPEL. > >Ideally we would add the ability to make policy statements inside of the >BPEL's definition to provide information about any non-backwards compatible >extensions made to the BPEL. A BPEL engine, during pre-processing, would >read in the policy statements, see if there was any it didn't support and if >there were any then reject the BPEL. > So are you saying I can extend the BPEL specification any way I want, and that would still be regarded as a BPEL implementation? Arkin
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]