Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 107 - Extension points and opacity

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

> Goland: It is true that your proposal would remove ambiguity but at 
> the cost of making abstract process definitions very fragile. 
> Mistakenly omitting something would end up being interpreted as 
> intentionally omitting something. By introducing opaque we remove that 
> sort of error and therefore make abstract process definitions more 
> robust.
>
> Portability of definitions is always going to be hard and every 
> opportunity we leave for honest mistakes will cause those mistakes to 
> happen. The tighter we make the definition, the less room we leave for 
> errors, the more likely we are to get portability.

mm1: If portability is out goal in definition, how will <opaque> support 
that? Seems to be it will push us in the opposite direction.