Why don't we allow abstract activities to either start with a normal,
legal start activity and/or an <opaque> activity? The meaning of using
<opaque> as a start activity in the context of an abstract process is
'unspecified stuff happens first..."
By explicitly including an <opaque> activity we make it clear that it
was the intention of the author of the abstract activity to not specify
how the process starts.
Thanks,
Yaron
Trickovic, Ivana wrote:
> Proposed resolution for issue 99: Any basic activity, except activities <reply>
> and <terminate>, may appear at the beginning of a BPEL abstract process.
>
> The proposed resolution does not affect the BPEL Schema (no changes are needed).
> Clarifications should be included in sections 6.4 and 11.4.
>
> Please note that the <terminate> activity is limited to executable processes,
> and a <reply> activity must always be preceded by a <receive> activity.
> Therefore these two activities are explicitly excluded.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ivana
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
