[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote
+1 to Paco and Prasad.
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.
From: Danny van der Rijn <email@example.com>
To: wsbpeltc <firstname.lastname@example.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.
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.