Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 23 - proposed resolution (add rationale) forTC

Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:

>Hello,
>
>we agreed in the TC, that my proposal (adding a rationale specifically to the case of flow vs. sequence) is too short sighted (because there might be some other places where a activity can be emulated by a more general one.
>
>The idea was, to have a general rationale wording, with the case sequence vs. flow as just one simple sample. I think the following suggestion is not the final perfect wording, but the right place to clearify:
>
>
># 12 Structured Activities
># ...
># * Nondeterministic choice based on external events is provided by pick.
>#
># > The set of activities in BPEL4WS is not intended to be the minimum required set. 
># > There are cases where one activity can replace another type. For example
># > the sequence activity used to structure sequential processing may be emulated by a 
># > more complex flow, which has links, to ensure sequential processing.
>#
># Structured activities...
>
mm1: Bernd, Perhaps we should answer questions such as when a <sequence> 
or <flow> is used.  It may not be a question of complexity but more so a 
usage preference. Is it not true that each can achieve the same goal? I 
believe so. Two usage examples should be sufficient.