ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: Easy BPEL aka BPEL4Coders aka BPEL4Hackers
Date Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:18:01 GMT
On Dec 3, 2007 10:10 AM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I question whether we need partnerLink declarations at all. The first time
you use one in an invoke, you get a partnerRole, the first time you use one
in a receive, you get a myRole. Binding to a port, portType, interface or
whatever is out of SimPEL and more a deployment thing. What do you think?

Matthieu


>
> 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