- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:54:34 -0700
- To: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- CC: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Monica Martin wrote: > A CDI can be executable. > Annotation seems to specify a solution to correlation or associated items. > Therefore, I think we should concentrate on those terms, rather than the use > of annotation, which is a solution that BEA has chosen to use to implement > some of these functions. The use case describing a cDI makes clear that it's not executable; in fact, it does not even correspond to an abstract processs description (in WS-BPEL). IMO annotation by itself is not problematic - in fact having text annotations is a requirement (D-CR-015), which I'd certainly support. More problematic is the proposal to use prose annotation to replace or to abstract away some constructs. Specifically, the proposal to "remove control logic from the cDI .. the cDI programmers would have to annotate the logic with human readable statements in order to explain their intent." (3.2.3.6). IMO this is not something on which we have consensus (at least not yet). In fact I think it is possibly in conflict with some of the other requirements, such as D-CR-035 and D-CR-038. --Jon
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 17:54:50 UTC