Please propose the 108 closure.
Yes, we will have to explain in simpler words what the resolution says.
The formal statement needs to remain as the authoritative precise
definition. I tried to put in some informal explanations, but they were
probably still too formal .. ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:08 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: bpel spec;
Subject: Re: passing the pen to Assaf
I reviewed the issue 10 text (btw, there is exactly 0% chance that any
normal implementer will understand what is said there, we need to figure
out how to massage the text to make it readable by normal programmers
who haven't cracked open their college textbooks in a decade or more)
and I agree that it makes issue 108 redundant. We should close 108 as no
change to the spec.
Yaron
Satish Thatte wrote:
> Yaron,
>
> As a result of incorporating 10, I believe 108 is now redundant. Do
you agree?
>
> Also, as soon as 168 is resolved we should revisit 81 and 120.
>
> Satish
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> *From:* Satish Thatte
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:14 PM
> *To:* 'bpel spec'
> *Cc:* 'Furniss, Peter'
> *Subject:* passing the pen to Assaf
>
> I have done two checkins, yesterday and today, for issues 10, 98, 135
and 176.
>
> Assaf, the pen is yours.
>
> Peter, please mark those issues as being incorporated in the spec.
>
> Satish
>
>
>
