OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[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]