Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] spec restructuring effort

Hi Alexandre,

I agree with the shortening of desc for <exit> in Section 5.2.

On the other hand, after re-reading text, we have the same old problem
again that we use the term "terminate" inconsistently in our spec.
(After all, <exit> is renamed from <terminate> and
terminationHandler is added in BPEL 2.0 cycle).

How about using "stop" instead of "terminate"?

Short version in Section 5.2:

The <exit> activity
can be used to immediately stop the behavior of a business
process
instance within which the <exit>
activity
is performed. 

Longer version in Section 10:

The <exit> activity
can be used to immediately stop the behavior of a business
process
instance within which the <exit>
activity
is performed. All currently running activities MUST be stopped
as soon as
possible without any termination handling, fault handling, or
compensation
behavior. 

Thanks!

Regards,

Alex Yiu

Alexandre Alves wrote:

  
  

  

  
  
  

  
Hi Alex,

  
 

  
Yeah, not a
big issue at all. My
suggestion would be to remove the last phrase from the 5.2 section
w.r.t. exit,
as that one is the most likely to change if anything ever changes at
all
relating to exit.

  
 

  
From:

  
The <exit> activity
can be used to immediately terminate the behavior of a business process
instance within which the <exit>
activity
is performed. All currently running activities MUST be terminated as
soon as
possible without any termination handling, fault handling, or
compensation
behavior. 

  
To:

  
The <exit> activity
can be used to immediately terminate the behavior of a business process
instance within which the <exit>
activity
is performed. 

  
If you
agree, I can do it in my next edit.
It is fine if you don't.

  
 

  
Rgds,

  
 

  

  

  

  
From: Alex
Yiu [mailto:] 

  Sent: Monday, January
30, 2006
12:51 PM

  To: Alexandre Alves

  Cc:
;
Alex Yiu

  Subject: Re:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
spec restructuring effort

  

  
 

  

Alexandre,

  

Thank you for catching the <targets><sources> order
problem. 

  

For section 5.2, I have been thinking what would be a good approach to
do spec
text in that section for a while. 

  

We are supposed to give a short introduction of each activity in
section 5.2.
But when the actual description of an activitiy is so short, then the
description in 5.2 and 10 are virtually the same. <exit> is one
of
examples. Yes, I am open to trim the description of those simple
activities in
section 5.2 further. Or, we can enrich some description in section 10. 

  

Anyhow, I don't have a strong preference here. 

  

Thanks!

  

  

Regards,

Alex Yiu

  

  

  

Alexandre Alves wrote: 

  
Hi,

  
 

  
I just
finished reviewing Alex's changes.
The spec is indeed much more readable, thanks Alex!

  
 

  
Just a few
comments:

  
In section
10.2, we have the order of standard elements inverted,
it should be
<targets>…</targets><sources>…</sources>
instead of
<sources>…</sources><targets>…</targets>.
(btw, this problems was already there and was not a result of Alex's
modifications) I can fix this the next time I edit the spec (just
posting here
to get everyone's agreement).

  
We seem to
duplicate the (verbatim) definition of the exit activity
in 5.2. and 10.10. It seems that 5.2. generally has an initial
explanation of
some construct and section 10 follows up with the exact definition. For
the
exit activity, we have the same text in both places. Maybe we should
just not
mention exit at all in 5.2 (like we don't do for rethrow), or if we do
mention,
just keep the first phrase instead of the complete definition to avoid
future
synchronization problems between both texts.

  
 

  
Rgds,

  
alex

  
 

  

  

  

  
From:
Mehta, Vinkesh (US - Austin)
[mailto:] 

  Sent: Monday, January
30, 2006
8:19 AM

  To: Alex Yiu; 

  Cc: Alexandre Alves; ; 

  Subject: RE:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
spec restructuring effort

  

  
  
 

  

  

  

  
I have fixed the TOC and
the formatting issue. I have
checked in the modified spec in CVS. 

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
I am still reviewing
Alex's latest changes. 

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
-Vinky

  

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
From: Mehta,
Vinkesh (US
- Austin)

  Sent: Fri 1/27/2006
9:05 AM

  To: Alex Yiu; 

  Cc: Alexandre Alves; ; 

  Subject: RE:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
spec restructuring effort

  

  
  

  

  

  
Thanks Alex. 

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
  - I will review your
updates.

  

  
  

  
  - Fix TOC

  

  
  

  
  - Fix any other
formatting issues

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
regards,

  

  
  

  
-Vinky

  

  

  
  

  
 

  

  

  
From: Alex Yiu
[mailto:]

  Sent: Fri 1/27/2006
2:09 AM

  To: 

  Cc: Alexandre Alves;
Mehta,
Vinkesh (US
- Austin); ; ;
Alex Yiu

  Subject: Re:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
spec restructuring effort

  

  
  

  

  

Hi all, 

  

I have just checked in my changes into CVS.

  

Compared with the doc that that I sent out a couple of days ago, there
are a
number of other minor additional changes: 

  
    
spilting the
references section and update some of references (Ron's resolution)

    
adding more
sub-section numbers to abstract process section

    
apply "observable
behavior" more consistently to the Introduction section (instead of
using both "observable" and "visible" in a mixed way) 

  
  

Venky, I believe you are the next one to hold the pen to fix up TOC and
other
format problems only in MS-Word 2003. 

  

  

Thanks!

  

  

Regards,

Alex Yiu

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
 

  

  

  
This message
(including any attachments) contains confidential information intended
for a
specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are
not
the intended recipient, you should delete this message. 

  

  

  
Any disclosure,
copying, or
distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is
strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]