Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

Ron Ten-Hove wrote:

> This is why <assign> is atomic. The intermediate states are never exposed.

Even trivial XML manipulation tends to involve some forms of computation 
during the manipulation process. A classic example is a while loop that 
goes through a document pulling out information in order to create a new 
document. During the time the while loop is iterating it is likely that 
the new document will be in a schema inconsistent state. Assign's 
atomicity is of no use here since there is no way to shove a while loop 
into an assign.

More generally, any XML manipulation which is not strictly linear and 
involves schema inconsistent intermediate states cannot be dealt with in 
BPEL since assign cannot contain decision or iteration logic.

Therefore if one wants to enable even simple XML manipulation in BPEL 
one inevitably ends up having to create some kind of transacted schema 
free zone. I'm suggesting we don't want to go there.

> Is it your assertion that we should create a standard that MUST be
> supplemented by an unspecified companion language, in order to create
> executable processes?
> 

Not at all. There are many ways to make BPEL work on its own. But I am 
asserting that BPEL should focus on the areas that it adds value and not 
re-invent functionality that is widely available in a standardized form.

> -Ron
>