Hi
Alex,
If I understand your
section 2 correctly, I think that your proposed mapping (2C) is inconsistent
with our previous Issue 39 resolution, in the sense that the element constructed
from a part with an "element" attribute should take its name from the
value of the "element" attribute and not from the part
name.
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 4:45 PM
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Danny van der Rijn; wsbpeltc
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - draft proposal
Hi Yaron and all others,
Here is the simpified version.
I trimmed all the open options and some descriptive text. I cut off 25% of content.
I hope that is easier for people to follow the proposal now.
But, you guys got questions in the simplified version. You may be able to find the answers and justification of the proposal in the original version.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
I long ago accepted that I'm not smarter than your average bear so perhaps I'm the only one who finds it impossible to read the proposal because of all the interlocking options. When I got to the point where I felt the need to draw a graph to try and understand the relationship between the various options I knew it was time to stop.
May I humbly request that you repost your proposal without any options what so ever? Just specify how you think this should all work and leave out the choices. If you want to have a separate section at the end that explores different options and why you didn't pursue them that would be great but it isn't necessary.
Since you are doing the work you get to suggest how things should work. If people don't like what you propose then let them suggest options and do the work to flesh those options out. But having a document that seems to be arguing with itself is just too confusing for me.
I think there are really important and very cool ideas in the proposal but the proposal itself needs to be simplified in order to let me, at least, get to them.
Thanks,
Yaron
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi all,
As promised in the conf call last week, here is the draft proposal for
Issue 103.
Please note that is a draft version of the proposal, NOT the final
version that will be used for voting yet. Especially, there are some
options listed in the proposal for item (1B) and (2C) and (3B) (with
some preferences expressed).
Please voice your opinions so that we know that we are solving Issue 103
in a right way.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu