Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote

[rkhalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi Monica,

The proposal in (1) makes abstract BPEL's syntax a strict superset of 
executable BPEL. This is not what is in the specification.

The issue 82 is to clarify what abstract bpel is (mainly wordsmithing as 
the issue states) and to have a better definition not to change what it 
is or how it is.  The other issues are being used to do that such as 107 
etc .. Changing structure goes under rearchitecting.

thanks,
Rania

Monica J. Martin wrote:
> rkhalaf wrote:
> 
>>> Goland: 1) Superset - a superset of executable processes, that is, 
>>> all features and functionality available in executable processes are 
>>> available in abstract processes.
>>
>>
>> Khalaf: This would have to be a separate issue. This issue deals with 
>> clarification not rearchitecture. If you want to bring this up, valid 
>> arguments should be made for all the cases in the fork, perhaps as 
>> each being its own issues. That way we can pull up only things that 
>> make sense. Either way, my proposal does not close doors for going up 
>> related venues syntactically. It explains about abstract processes so 
>> that we can have intelligent discussions in the other issues about the 
>> specifics such as syntax etc.
> 
> 
> mm1: Can you more explicitly state the reasoning for response, Rania? If 
> the issue was: we don't understand abstract processes, what they are and 
> how they are used, and we need to put a definition to it. Then, how can 
> a proposed definition be rearchitecting? Is that definition specific to 
> your use case rather than Yaron's or other TC members? Thank you.