Alex,
Are you proposing this as an addition or a replacement for the current
syntax? Sounds like an addition to me from the issue description but is
there a reason to have two syntactic mechanisms?
Satish
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:25 PM
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: wsbpeltc; ALEX.YIU@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!
Yaron,
Thanks for agreeing with me on Issue 103. :-) Really appreciate it.
And, yes, potentially we can using path segment to deal with WSDL
messsage parts also.
Do you prefer dealing the WSDL message part issue also in Issue 103? Or,
we can separate it in another issu?. The later will allow us to vote on
Issue 103 faster.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
The more I think about 103 the better an idea I think it is.
I wonder if we couldn't possibly make it work for WSDL types messages?
Could we say that if the variable is of type WSDL message then there
MUST be at least one path segment attached to it and that the path
segment MUST be the name of a part in the WSDL message?
Yaron
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_workgr
oup.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_workgr
oup.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.