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. Assaf Cheers, > Tammo, Olly > > -- > Tammo van Lessen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.taval.de > -- CTO, Intalio http://www.intalio.com
