Hi,
> I question if we need to keep partnerLinkType alive?
If we want to have a 1:1 relation of simBPEL to BPEL, then we really need to
keep it.
We think, it is good to have a more easy language, but this should be the
second step. First, there should be a bijective mapping between simBPEL and
BPEL, so that one can freely choose the syntax one likes.
We think that something like simBPEL+ should be born afterwards. There,
language extensions such as your security context and anonymous partner
links could be brought in. Then, the simple syntax is clearly distinguished
from the extensions of BPEL.
> It's a modeling artifact, but if we're not aiming for modeling,
> do we need the extra indirection?
Isn't the introduction of anonymous partner links a new kind of modeling? In
that case, the modeler has not to think about the concrete partner links.
Cheers,
Olly, Tammo
