[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Draft: Issue - 11 - Discussion & Proposals
Rania Khalaf wrote:When we did 157, xslt was proposed and a lot of people - or maybe a few very vocal people (i can't recall who right now) - were very much against xslt since it 'would introduce lots of unknowns and we don't have time to debug this now' or something like that.The 157 proposals would have introduced a fairly tight coupling between the BPEL copy mechanisms and an XSLT-based transformation. This indeed would have been complex, since the intermixing of the two vocabularies would have had a lot of interesting (read complex) nuances. This proposal keeps XSLT at arms-length. The simplest variant, as an XPath extension function, doesn't impact the BPEL data handling model at all. i personally like chris's proposal and especially if uses the infoset language as yaron had suggested.The motivation here is to give us a portable way of putting non-trivial XML manipulation into BPEL processes. By using the XPath extension function variant, we don't need to define the mechanism in terms of info-set. If we go for the extensibleAssign version, that would require proper info-set definitions. -Ron |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]