Hi,
Here is the reworded version based Sanjay's suggestion:
A componentType
document for a BPEL process definition
can be found by using either
"process QName matching" or "contribution URI matching" mechanisms.
If a componentType document cannot be found through either "process
QName
matching" or "contribution URI matching" mechanism, SCA infrastructure
MUST implicitly generate a componentType document based on the
introspection of the implementation BPEL process definition.
For "process QName matching", a BPEL process (which is identified by a
QName) can be matched with any ComponentType document that has an
<implementation.bpel> refers to the same process QName, wherever
it might be within the contribution. For example, if a componentType
document has an <implementation.bpel process="foo:bar">, it will
be considered a match for a BPEL process identified by "foo:bar" QName
(where the prefix "foo" in both documents are resolved to the same
namespace.).
For "contribution URI matching", a BPEL process can be matched with a
componentType document of which the contribution URI is identical to
the contribution URI of the BPEL process except of that the extension
is changed to ".componentType". For example, if
"file:/scratch/dir1/compositeX/Foo.bpel" is the contribution URI of a
BPEL process, then the contribution URI of a matching componentType
document would be: "file:/scratch/dir1/compositeX/Foo.componentType"
If a
non-one-to-one relationship is found during matching (e.g. one-to-many
or many-to-one),
SCA Infrastructure SHOULD signal an error to users.
I hope that people like the updated proposal better and find it easier
to follow.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Patil, Sanjay wrote:
646FFD22D57BD14E9E1051EDBEE28D6E05F13C40@uspale20.pal.sap.corp"
type="cite">
Yes. I think we should add a
statement to point out the error case.
-- Sanjay
Hi, Sanjay,
Just to clarify:
Do you mean if there are two componentType documents that are matched
(one by URI, or the other by QName), we will treat that as an error
case?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Patil, Sanjay wrote:
646FFD22D57BD14E9E1051EDBEE28D6E05F13B73@uspale20.pal.sap.corp"
type="cite">
I think (after Michael Rowley
convinced me with his argument on the call) there is no need to
standardize the search order. Instead, we could do the following:
a> Start with the text: A componentType document for a BPEL process definition can
be found by using either 'QName matching' or 'contribution
URI matching' mechanisms. When a componentType document can not be
found by using either of these mechanisms, the SCA infrastructure MUST
implicitly generate a componentType document based on the introspection
of the implementation BPEL process definition
b>
Describe the two mechanisms of finding componentType
-- Sanjay
|