Re: [wsbpel] Issue 243 - general idea

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

Just an FYI - since 242 was closed with no change, I am not intending on bringing up 243 for being opened.

Danny van der Rijn wrote:

> I didn't actually put 243 into the draft of 242 as I said I might. 
> 243 would look very similar - split forEach into serialForEach and
> parallelForEach, and moving the required scope-child of
> parallelForEach into the parent element.  remove the requirement for
> serialForEach to have a scope child.
>