Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote
I was of the same opinion as you (that partner elements may have a use in B2B modeling for example) but the truth is we don't know enough about their use to justify their inclusion in the final spec. Better err on the side of simplicity. Paco Danny van der Rijn To: wsbpeltc <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org cc: > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote 12/20/2004 05:34 PM While partners have no syntactic or semantic value in either abstract or executable BPEL (nor have they ever), they still retain semantic meaning at the modeling level. I don't actually recall a discussion about removing them, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about doing so, and wonder what others think on the issue. Danny Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > I had previously moved that we remove partners (not partnerLinks) from > the BPEL specification. I had been asked to table that proposal until > we had a better understanding of what role partners might play in > abstract processes. At the F2F the general consensus was that we now > have a good enough understanding of what abstract processes are likely > to look like in BPEL that we can safely conclude that partners will > not play a significant role. Therefore I was asked to re-raise my > original proposal. > > I therefore move that we remove partners from the BPEL specification. > > Thanks, > > Yaron > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php . > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php .