Thanks. What do you want to do with 81 if 168 passes with option 1
(yours) as seems highly likely?
-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: bpel spec;
Subject: Re: passing the pen to Assaf
I just submitted the proposal for 108.
I've also go the pen.
Yaron
Satish Thatte wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
