+1 for the IRC gig. On 5/12/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody's on a quest to solve the general > process calculus theorem. > wonderful, that subject just keeps coming up and it seems like more of a red hearing... > I think this applies to Jacob as well. Admittedly, it's more complex > than BPE but it's a framework that facilitates thinking and reasoning > about concurrent and asynchronous operation. The relation to > pi-calculus is more of a coincidence than anything. We are looking for an understanding of why Jacob helps excution any more than BPE and the relationship to concurrency because previous discussions lead us to believe both PXE and BPE had the same concurrency challenges in some of the infrastructures like J2EE 1.3. Jacob did not solve that as far as it was explained to me - concurrency was "achieved" in PXE by "extending" BPEL outside of Jacob with proprietary threading infrastructure around the invoke point. All that extending was not, again as far as some of us could tell, specific to BPEL itself. While the concurrency discussion is a good one in some context, concurrency is a discussion unrelated to Jacob as far as I can discern. I'm trying to keep the rationalization of Jacob very clear because it is a very important point. > I take your feedback as the need to address the documentation side of > Jacob and this is something we'll be happy to produce. Alex, if we can get to the real root of the Jacob discussion and understand how you think Jacob actually is better in the execution of BPEL and the BPEL concurrency problem itself, that is going to be most helpful. Acknowledging that we need to address the concurrency issue at some point, if Jacob itslef does not relate directly to concurrency, we could take that out of the Jacob discussion initially and try to put Jacob in terms more directly related to a single BPEL process execution. thanks
