Hello,
I
agree also with Paco, Prasad and Yaron, there is not much use in the current
Partner definiton and it looks like abstract BPEL is not going to be a
collaboration planning tool, so we can remove it that will reduce
confusion.
Bernd
I originally asked that we hold
off until the abstract BPEL issue comes to a closer as this seemed of most
relevance for abstract BPEL (externally visible behavior use case in
particular). All external interaction dependencies w.r.t. a collaborating
party grouped together, so that developer of the process on the collaborating
side can easily see the all interaction points with the processes that it
needs to mesh with.
However, at this point I don't see much utility
for this myself unless we specify how the users are expected to make use of
this clearly. I agree with Paco that better to remove things that have no
direct utility to the BPEL users.
Regards,
Prasad
-------- Original Message --------
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
From: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>
To: wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote
Date: 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
|