[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
Satish Thatte wrote: >I don't understand the distinction you are drawing when you write >"guidance or compatibility between the abstract and one of the adjoining >executable processes rather than conformance". > > mm1: The latter infers more rigor and requirements on the implementation. Guidance is only that - this is a best practice and recommended that an executable process be conformant to an abstract one. However, it's not dictated by the specification. Conformance, although voluntary, infers that, for example, the mandatory functions of a specification can be tested against in a verifiable way. With the case of abstract-executable, the conformance is two-fold - to the specification and the executable to the abstract. Another discriminator would be: * Monitored or passive: An executable process could be compatible with an abstract process. This could still support conformance of an abstract or executable process to the specification. It however does not require an executable process to be conformant to an abstract process. It could be recommended. * Active or directed: An executable process is evaluated to be conformant with an abstract process. The use of executable process could be constrained by the conformance to the abstract process. It also infers that the abstract and executable are conformant to the specification. I am not supporting one over the other, but making the distinction as it is relevant to this discussion and what it infers on implementations. Thank you.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]