Re: struggling with operation and message patterns writeup in spec

I'm rather cautious about this proposal.  Would we end up wanting to cut
down on the number of patterns described, or on the detail included, if
we were to combine the two parts?

Doesn't having a separate part illustrate more clearly how third parties
may define new patterns than inline definitions would?

Amy!
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:14:43 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> I'm struggling with the split between parts 1 & 2 of the spec
> for message patterns. In particular, we currently have it so that
> part 1 defines <operation> etc. but not any specific patterns. At
> the same time, we will clearly not want to use the generic syntax
> for the patterns we define (in particular that will require users
> to remember pattern URIs which IMO is unacceptable). However, we
> can't talk about simplified syntax etc. if the patterns for which
> the syntax is being defined is elsewhere. At the same time I don't
> like the idea of defining syntactic shortcuts for a fundamental 
> thing like <operation>s anywhere but in part 1.
> 
> My current thinking is that we should move the description of 
> normative patterns to part 1. I volunteer to do the work.
> 
> Thoughts welcome.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 10:29:39 UTC