Paul R Brown wrote: > Atomic transactions is a good strawman to think about -- do you have > a specific proposal? (That appendix was stricken from the spec once > upon a time.)
Yes, we have a proposal in the works. Assaf is currently reviewing compliance with the BPEL spec to ensure that it doesn't break any existing semantic with scopes, compensation, etc. We'll put something on the wiki when it's ready for review. > E4X would be supported by the standard expression language extension > point, not as an extension element or attribute. Depends how far you want to take it, but I guess using it as an expression language is a good start. I won't go into the ability to mix in some ECMAScript procedural instructions with BPEL activities just yet ;) alex
