[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue 109: Proposal to Vote - Compatibility between Abstract andExecutable Processes
Reference: http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue109 Issue 109 is handled in part by Issue 82 and its subissues, 82.1-.3. For example, they are related (but not subject to any requested dependency, i.e. there is no requirement that other subissues must be closed before 109 is): * Map to Issue 82. Reason: Reference to executable completion. * Map to Issue 82.1. Reason: Ensures syntax and validation of abstract BPEL is consistent as applicable with the executable BPEL. Relates to compatibility. * Map to Issue 82.2: Promote consistency between common base and abstract process (Note: At the time this issue was written, we had not identified a common base). * Map to Issue 82.3. Reason: Promote consistency between any example abstract process and any profile examples developed (Note: At the time this issue was written, we had not identified a usage profile concept). * In Section 15.2 that talks about executable completion, add: o Where an abstract process is used , a compatible EP an executable completion of the permitted completions of the applicable AP profile that implements the associated abstract process and its constraints if any. Rania, this is the consolidated proposal that I had forwarded to you. Thank you.  Compatible if there is an EP and associated AP. EP could exist without AP.