ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Easy BPEL aka BPEL4Coders aka BPEL4Hackers
Date Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:10:06 GMT
On 12/3/07, Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Nov 27, 2007 11:41 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> > But reading the process definition, plink.foo is confusing, I can't just
> by
> > reading determing if it's invoking or receiving without also digging
> into
> > the operation definition.  And me/partner is just another way of saying
> > receive/invoke, so why not say it directly?
> Ok, agreed :) The last one in Matthieu's mail look definitely
> promising as it's pretty close to original BPEL look&feel (receive()
> and invoke()).
>
> What do you think about the partnerLink declaration? We thought about
> something like that:
>
>   partnerLink plink = [type = ns1::plType, myRole = rolea, partnerRole
> = roleb, init = true]; // init defaults to false


I question if we need to keep partnerLinkType alive?  It's a modeling
artifact, but if we're not aiming for modeling, do we need the extra
indirection?  What about specifying partner link directly as my and/or
partner, and either one can be a port type or a port.

Assaf



Cheers,
>   Tammo, Olly
>
> --
> Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
>



-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message