Hi Alex, indeed, it was the intention to make declarations mandatory for
all extensions (b). Your point (a) sounds absolutely reasonable to me, this
should be kept consistent. I do not have a clear preference for (c); I
could imagine additional extension-specific declarations within the
<extension> element, however, I do not have a scenario at hand.
Kind Regards
DK
Alex Yiu
<alex.yiu@oracle.
com> To
Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
23.12.2004 00:26 cc
wsbpeltc
<>, Alex
Yiu <>
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 92 - Proposal
for vote
Hi, DK
I am agree with your proposal, generally speaking.
There are few things/questions I would to mention/ask:
(a) BPEL's current convention is using "yes" or "no" (bpws:tBoolean)
instead of "true" or "false" (xsd:boolean).
(b) Does this proposal mean ALL BPEL extension points
(element/attribute) MUST be always declared with this syntax? Otherwise,
the BPEL implementation should reject the process.
I presume the answer is yes by reading the implication of the text. It
would be nice to have explicit text on that.
(c) I presume the <extension> related syntax does not have its own
extension points. (e.g. location of extension definition). Again
explicit text on this would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
