An execution plan entails both implicit and explicit definition of state. The implicit state refers to where you are in the process, and the explicit state refers to the data that the process is manipulating. I'm suggesting that a better way to define the process is to let the explicit state dictate what should be done next.
Anne On 1/12/07, Ashley at Metamaxim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne > I think BPEL is fundamentally flawed. I don't think an execution > language is the right way to manage orchestration. It leads to > centralized orchestration engines. I much prefer a distributed model > in which the next orchestration step is determined by the current > state of the process rather than a predefined sequence of steps. Defining a process as "a predefined sequence sequence of steps" entails an implicit definition of states of the process -- namely the states that the sequence is in between successive steps. This suggests that there is no difference (other than notation) between defining the next step of an orchestration on the basis of a sequence of steps, and defining it using some kind of state based description. However, I do not think you were just pointing out a preference for one notation over another. Or were you? Rgds Ashley
