[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: CPPA 2.1 proposed changes to align with BPSS 2.0
Hi Hima, Monica, and I formulated some draft proposals on changes
that might be made (with both TC’s consensus) to specify how BPSS and CPPA
align on getting values for Service, Action, and ActionContext. [We will need to
get around to Role values eventually, but we did not do that Monday, and it will
mainly be of interest to the CPPA TC members.] Here is what the CPPA 2.0 alignment involved: 1. When using BPSS 1.x as a process specification, use the @uuid
value on ProcessSpecification as the value of Service. [ Proposed to be changed
for BPSS 2 alignment] 2. When using BPSS 1.x, the @name values for RequestingBusinessActivity
and RespondingBusinessActivity are default values for Actions. These values can,
however, be manually overridden in a CPPA. [In other words, for the automatic generation of Action values
in CPPs, use the @name attribute values. However, allow these values to be edited
to be different strings in distributed CPPs or CPA templates, or within final CPAs.] 3. The ActionContext serves to provide the definitive information
that allows programs to find the right BT in the intended choreographic context
of the referring BTA. The major difference proposed in aligning CPPA 2.1 with BPSS
2.0 is to permit a single BPSS instance to specify more than one service value.
The initial proposal is to allow each toplevel business collaboration choreography
to supply a value for the ebXML Service. That means that 1-new. When using BPSS 2.x, the @name attribute on a toplevel
BinaryCollaboration, BusinessCollaboration or MultiPartyCollaboration provides Service
values for use with CPPA and ebMS. [ It would probably be feasible to relax the “toplevel”
restriction if some important use cases supported it. We would, however, need to
explain how a convention can be formulated that can be used for the automatic (default)
generation of Service values in CPPs that are constructed for a given BPSS instance.) The bpss:ProcessSpecification/@uuid value would still be used
to identify the BPSS instance within the CPA. There will need to be some changes in how ActionContext works
and these will be proposed by Hima. What we have not yet proposed is any standard or default convention
that relates the ebXML Service value to the wsdl:service/@name value. If anyone has a proposal to make in this area that works
smoothly with BPSS 2.0 and CPPA 2.1 or above, please make it known as soon as possible. Please look at the new bpss:OperationMapping element and also
look at the proposed support for WSDL under DocExchange in the 2.1 CPPA schema and
editor’s draft. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]