[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 107 - Extension points and opacity
I believe that <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200404/msg00041.html> and <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200404/msg00052.html> answer your question. Yaron Monica J. Martin wrote: > > > > 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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]