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

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

> Opaque is a very straight forward statement - I am not telling you 
> what happens in this part of the code.
>
> This means that an opaque could be replaced with any possible code 
> including but certainly not limited to 'empty'.

But by definition, 'I am not telling you what happens in this part of 
the [process]' is a possibility anywhere within the abstract, right? Any 
additional implementation details could be inserted anywhere, since we 
don't specify that this is precluded?

Unless you have a way to constrain the implementation against the 
abstract, the following three are sematically identical and should be 
interpreted the same way:

receive
opaque
opaque
reply

receive
opaque
reply

receive
reply

The only case where 'opaque' would actually say something meaningful is 
where you are required to include an activity but have nothing to say, 
for example, inside an event handler. The 'empty' activity exists for 
that purpose. So semantically, they both do the same thing.

I am ignoring the English meaning of the name used for the activity. I'd 
favor solving confusing by say picking a different name for the activity 
rather than adding another one, or maybe managing without either one.

Assaf

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature