On 11/5/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So any opinion on both proposals? What are the parts that you like better?
> Tammo, did you have a look at AAM?
I think the almost-javascript aspect is going to be really confusing - where
can I put a javascript expression? where not?
Is there any reason not to attempt to have a process just be a totally valid
javascript? Using e4x would save having to create new xml-isms, and the
whole thing would also have the potential side-benefit that it could be
implemented inside a browser. Imagine a google gears app with embedded
Ode... that would rock!
Plus, there could be the added irony of combining e4x with json. There could
be a couple of preordained object-literal constructs, and a way to bless
those things into actual processes, scopes, partners, etc. Some logic chunks
normally handled in bpel might get delegated to javascript, but that doesn't
seem like a big problem.
Random syntax examples:
default xml namespace = "urn:my:process";
var scope = {
Sequence: { ... }, // or Flow, etc
onEvent: function(e) { ...},
onFault: function(f) { ...}
};
With e4x, PortTypes and references could be literals if needed:
var epr = <EndpointReference><Address>http://foo/bar
</Address></EndpointReference>;
var pt = new QName(x, y);
var counter_pl = { PortType: pt , Epr: epr} ;
Slight modification of one of the examples:
var ExternalCounter = new Process({
onReceive: function(my_pl, start_op, msg_in) {
var resp = <root><count>0</count></root>;
while(resp.root.count < 10) {
invoke( {
Link: counter_pl,
Operation: partner_start_op,
Message: <counter>{resp.root.count}</counter>,
onReply: function(reply) { resp.root.count += reply.counter; }
onFault: function(fault) { ... };
} );
}
reply(resp);
}
});
