[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 90 - Proposal to vote
It is exceedingly likely that the URI resolutions will quickly become non-portable as well. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:kagren@pakalert.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:25 AM To: 'Dieter Koenig1' Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 90 - Proposal to vote Dieter, I agree that adding more XPath functions makes it harder to understand the process by inspecting the process definition, which is why I suggested a new form of the <from> element. While I agree that the BPEL spec should stay away from deployment-related issues, at the end of the day, an executable process definition will be deployed. If this type of functionality is so common that it will be implemented by most vendors, unarguably in a non-portable fashion, I think it might be beneficial to standardize the way a static external document could be included into the process definition. Best regards, Kristofer -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:43 PM To: Kristofer Agren Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 90 - Proposal to vote Kristofer, the BPEL spec expresses that deployment-related issues are out of scope. In addition, I believe they should be kept orthogonal to the process model. For access to common data, the spec also has explicit statements: "All external resources and partners are represented as WSDL services." "BPEL4WS, builds on WSDL by assuming that all external interactions of the business process occur through Web Service operations."
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]