- From: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:11:29 -0600
- To: jdart@tibco.com
- CC: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Jon Dart wrote: > 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). mm1: Then we should separate machine sensible and executable. > > 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. mm1: Agreed on the concern. > > --Jon > >
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 17:58:26 UTC