OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[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:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:07 AM
To: wsbpeltc
Cc: Francisco Curbera
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote


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 --------


Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 130 - Proposal for vote


Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:13:05 -0500


Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>


Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>


wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>

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.

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.
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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]