Re: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Yaron,

I'm trying to grapple here with what the real problem is.

I agree simple is vital - otherwise compliance testing
becomes a vast project for one - and implementation
another.

What are why trying to do here with a JOIN?  Why do
we need a query language?  Surely this is trivial -

Join condition({XPath expression}, #targetnode),

Where #targetnode is a standard XML IDREF anchor
to some other point of the XML.

When the condition is true you branch to the anchor.

Am I missing something?

DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>
To: "'Maciej Szefler'" <mbs@fivesight.com>; "'Assaf Arkin'"
<arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: "'rkhalaf'" <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]


> The question is what will cause the least amount of effort for users? To
> take an existing language that they are familiar with and routinely use
and
> then create a sub-set of it for use in join-conditions or to create an
> entirely new language specifically for join conditions and now force users
> to learn two languages with potentially unrelated and inconsistent
syntaxes?
>
> I personally favor the former. I also think that if we are to finish this
> spec in a reasonable amount of time we should avoid creating new query
> languages.
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> Yaron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:55 AM
> > To: ygoland@bea.com; 'Assaf Arkin'
> > Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]
> >
> >
> > Consistency should be reserved for areas where there is some
> > common domain.
> > As Assaf points out join conditions have nothing to do with XML node
> > selection, so why would we try to adopt an expression language aimed
> > squarely at XML node selection crippling it so that it no
> > longer does what
> > it was intended to do? It makes no sense to me. If anything
> > it makes things
> > confusing.
> >
> > Would a structured XML representation such as "<and><link
> > name="foo"/<link
> > name="bar"></and>" satisfy your objection to creating multiple sets of
> > grammars?
> >
> > -maciej
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:08 AM
> > To: 'Assaf Arkin'
> > Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]
> >
> > This has nothing to do with XML manipulation, this has to do
> > with the need
> > to have a consistent expression/query language used
> > throughout BPEL. If
> > someone is moving to a new expression/query language for all other
> > expressions in BPEL they should not be forced to use a different
> > expression/query language just for join conditions. That is why join
> > condition must have the same syntax flexibility that is
> > available to all
> > other expressions/queries.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:00 PM
> > > To: ygoland@bea.com
> > > Cc: 'rkhalaf'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 13 - Updated Proposed Resolution]
> > >
> > >
> > > Yaron Goland wrote:
> > >
> > > >Imagine a prefix style XML manipulation language is
> > > introduced that does
> > > >things like "and(foo,bar)". No tool in its right mind is
> > > going to say to the
> > > >user 'well you can use the prefix style everywhere in BPEL
> > > but this one
> > > >single place, join conditions, where you have to use an
> > > infix "foo and bar"
> > > >style.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You're right.
> > >
> > > I've read the spec over and over and over and I still don't
> > > understand
> > > what XML manipulation has to do with join conditions. I don't
> > > see node
> > > selection, there's no context node or any variable/function
> > > you can use
> > > to operate on nodes. No operators are allowed unless they deal with
> > > binary values. If nodes are non-existent, then where does XML
> > > manipulation come into play?
> > >
> > > So while I agree with the logic you presented, I still fail
> > > to see how
> > > it applies to join conditions.
> > >
> > > arkin
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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/le
> ave_workgroup.
> php.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>