On Dec 3, 2007 10:10 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/3/07, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Nov 27, 2007 11:41 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But reading the process definition, plink.foo is confusing, I can't > just > > by > > > reading determing if it's invoking or receiving without also digging > > into > > > the operation definition. And me/partner is just another way of > saying > > > receive/invoke, so why not say it directly? > > Ok, agreed :) The last one in Matthieu's mail look definitely > > promising as it's pretty close to original BPEL look&feel (receive() > > and invoke()). > > > > What do you think about the partnerLink declaration? We thought about > > something like that: > > > > partnerLink plink = [type = ns1::plType, myRole = rolea, partnerRole > > = roleb, init = true]; // init defaults to false > > > I question if we need to keep partnerLinkType alive? It's a modeling > artifact, but if we're not aiming for modeling, do we need the extra > indirection? What about specifying partner link directly as my and/or > partner, and either one can be a port type or a port. >
I question whether we need partnerLink declarations at all. The first time you use one in an invoke, you get a partnerRole, the first time you use one in a receive, you get a myRole. Binding to a port, portType, interface or whatever is out of SimPEL and more a deployment thing. What do you think? Matthieu > > Assaf > > > > Cheers, > > Tammo, Olly > > > > -- > > Tammo van Lessen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.taval.de > > > > > > -- > CTO, Intalio > http://www.intalio.com >
