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

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

rkhalaf wrote:

> 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.
>
mm1: This restriction was not a part of the subgroup discussion, and 
clearly was not placed on the scope of the recent TC participation until 
you specified it.  Why did the subgroup spend 5+ months trying to define 
it if the boundary was the specification as a gate? To coin Satish, this 
is 'false economy.' Thank you.