- From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:01:24 -0500
- To: "WS Choreography (E-mail)" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Thanks for the reply. More below... Paul At 12:28 PM 2004-01-30, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: >Paul, > >you have the gist completely. Of course BPEL is only one skeletal target. Noted. >Java is another and maybe there would be others that get a look in. Is there a JSR for this yet? >Whilst I know many that would like to use a BPEL-like solution for >execution I know just as many that would not because >they need higher distribution in the execution. I'm not sure what you mean be a need for higher distribution in the execution. Sounds like you are hinting at a limitation in BPEL; would this limitation be in the language, or in implementing a BPEL processing engine? >Given that users are not uniform we as a group (WS-CHOR) are looking at >BPEL as one (an important one albeit) target. Understood. >Cheers > >Steve T > > >On 30 Jan 2004, at 15:20, Paul Denning wrote: > >> >>At 02:18 AM 2004-01-29, Burdett, David wrote: >>>It also identifies one possible additional document that would describe >>>how to generate process language definitions (e.g. BPEL) for a role from >>>a Choreography Definition. >> >>Would the primer talk about where BPEL fits in relation to WS-CDL. >> >>Maybe this gets into methodology, but it sounds like business partners >>would get together and capture their discussion in WS-CDL. Then each >>partner goes back and generates BPEL (skeleton) for their side of the >>interactions. Then adds more meat to the BPEL such that they can feed >>it into a BPEL workflow engine. >> >>Is that the gist of it? >> >>Paul
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 14:02:02 UTC