RE: [wsbpel] process coordination ideas - counter-proposal revised

Satish and all,

> I realize I had provided no such explanations in my PPT 
> so attached herewith is an update with an additional 
> explanation slide and a few other clarifications suggested 
> by others.

In response, I also revised my counter-proposal (attached).

Thanks for the explanations, I now understand much better where you're
going with this.

> I strongly believe that coordination (c*) messages 
> will very commonly require application-specific data 
> in long-running business transactions.  As such 
> I think of coordination across processes 
>(and especially subprocesses invoked by a coordinating 
> superior process) as abstract design patterns superimposed 
> on application-specific interactions.  And there is more 
> than one of these patterns -- for instance I suspect that 
> Robert and I have illustrated two of them.

I agree that there will be more than one of such patterns - 
once started a project in UNCEFACT to try to harvest them.
But they (mostly? all?) consist of some application messages 
finishing with the equivalent of confirm or cancel.

By the way, I revised mine to correspond more to the EAN.UCC Simple-eb
scenario.