Re: [wsbpel] Issue 110 - Rough draft for proposal to vote

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Danny van der Rijn wrote:

maybe not semantics, but connotations, which i'd like to avoid changing.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as being connoted by Yaron's draft. The plain reading, at least to me, is that <invoke> can be used for one-way and request/response MEPs. The fact that request/response may be accomplished, in the binding, by asynchronous or synchronous message exchange is explicitly mentioned. This seems to address the issues I would worry about, in terms of connotations about implementations. Is there room for some misunderstanding in his text?

-Ron

Ugo Corda wrote:

this ties our semantics too closely to HTTP-like semantics 
    

I don't think that Yaron's new text changes in any way the current
semantics.