Re: AW: [wsbpel] Issue 136 - Proposal For Vote

[Yuzo Fujishima <fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com>]

Hi,

I don't like <switch> very much, because its semantics is
different from C/C++/Java switch in that:
* the case conditions are not constants in BPEL
* cases won't "fall-through" in BPEL

I think <switch> is semantically much closer to if-elseif-else.
Accordingly, I would like to counter-propose the following.

----BEGIN----

1. Rename "switch" to "branch".
2. Rename the first "case" to "if" and second and later to
    "elseif".
3. Rename "otherwise" to "else".

Then we have the following:

<branch standard-attributes>
   standard-elements
   <if>
       <condition expressionLanguage="anyURI"?>expr</condition>
       activity
   </if>
   <elseif>*
       <condition expressionLanguage="anyURI"?>expr</condition>
       activity
   </elseif>
   <else>?
     activity
   </else>
</branch>

Pros:
<> Should look familiar to arguably wider audience.
<> Smallest impact on existing implementation. Just renaming should do.

Cons:
<> The root element <branch> is somewhat ugly, especially when
    neither <elseif> nor <else> is written. (Can be mitigated
    by better word choice. Do you have any idea?)

----END----

Yuzo
NEC Corporation

andrew.francis@mail.mcgill.ca wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> 
>>On one hand we have users of languages like Visual Basic,
>>Perl, Python  and JavaScript which all support the
>>equivalent of static switch and  if-then-elseif-else ala
>>Issue 136.
> 
> 
> Python does not have a switch statement.
> 
> I feel there are far stronger reasons for a Perl, or
> Python programmer to not consider using WS-BPEL than
> WS-BPEL's lack of a static switch statement.
> 
> 
>>On the other hand we have early BPEL adopters who
>>knowingly adopted a brand new language that was under
>>active standards development?
> 
> 
> I find the naming of "switch" inappropriate. However
> the "switch" that is really a "if-then-else" works.
> I suspect it will cost the existing user base money
> to make what is essentially a cosmetic change. Often
> language features have to be changed or deprecated. And
> I think that most user bases can appreciate language
> changes that were well thought out and provide value.
> However I think it is a poor policy to expect early
> adopters to have "caveat emptor" attitude towards
> one's language.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>