I agree.
If the distinction was made between doings thing in order or in
parallel, then I understand why you need two different activities. But
we wouldn't need links or serializable scopes. Currently the flow
activity covers all the cases from strictly serialized to strictly
concurrent and all shades in between, making the sequence activity
nothing more than a convinience. You need to support the complexity of
synchronized activities to support the flow activity, that's not easy
but if you have the capability you might as well use it all the way.
So the sequence activity does need to justify its existence, and it
needs a generic rational so we can decide what to do with other existing
or proposed "simplifications" to the language.
arkin
Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:
>Hello Satish,
>
>
>
>>I honestly don't think <sequence> needs to justify its existence.
>>Concurrency with synchronization can emulate sequentiality but that is
>>clearly a convoluted and expensive way to do the simplest kind of
>>orchestration.
>>
>>
>
>This may be true from the standpoint of writing bpel by hand, but for sure it is a non issue for implementation. Depending on your internal runtime data model, a sequence is only an additional complication, provided the fact, that you need to offer a implementation for flow, anyway. And since a sequence does not forbid to have links in and out, it also means your engine has to support the notion of synchronisation, anyway.
>
>So we should make clear in the spec, that it is only a shortcut, for skipping those links inside a sequential flow, but all other properties will apply, anyway.
>
>Greetings
>Bernd
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:
>
>
