[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Title: SCA-BPEL spec can not require bpel:mustUnderstandto be true
TARGET: SCA C+I WS-BPEL spec, General DESCRIPTION: Section 3 currently reads as follows: "It is possible to use WS-BPEL processes in
conjunction
with SCA, while the processes have no knowledge of SCA. A few SCA
concepts are only available to WS-BPEL
processors that support SCA
specific extensions. The capabilities
that require knowledge of SCA are provided by an SCA extension, which
must be
declared in any process definition as follows: <process ...> <extensions>
<extension
namespace="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca-bpel/200801" mustUnderstand="yes"
/> </extensions> ... </process> This is too restrictive. There should be no requirement on the value of bpel:mustUnderstand. Let's examine what the attribute actually means. From section 14 of the BPEL spec itself: " If a WS-BPEL processor does not support one or more of the extensions with mustUnderstand="yes", then the process definition MUST be rejected. Optional extensions are extensions which the WS-BPEL process MAY ignore. There is no requirement to declare any optional extensions. Optional extension can be declared using the extensions element with mustUnderstand="no". The purpose of allowing optional extensions to be declared using the extensions element is to provide a well defined location where additional information about the optional extension can be found. "Reading the current language of both specifications, consider the following edge case: <process...> <extensions> <extension namespace="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca-bpel/200801" mustUnderstand="yes" /> <extensions/> ... a process where NO items from the sca-bpel namespace are used ... OR ... a process where sca-bpel items are used, but the processor need not know about them in order to run ... </process> In this case, a "vanilla" BPEL processor will process the file with no issue. An SCA-BPEL processor MUST reject the process as invalid, since the requirement in section 3 is not followed. This is not correct behavior. SCA-BPEL processors must accept a superset of what BPEL processors can process. To do otherwise would introduce a nightmare of compatibility issues. PROPOSAL: change the wording in Section 3 to read as follows It is possible to use WS-BPEL processes in conjunction with SCA, while the processes have no knowledge of SCA. A few SCA concepts are only available to WS-BPEL processors that support SCA specific extensions. The capabilities that require knowledge of SCA are provided by an SCA extension, whose namespace is "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca-bpel/200801". An example of using the namespace in a BPEL process is as follows: <process ...> <extensions>
<extension
namespace="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca-bpel/200801" mustUnderstand="yes"
/> </extensions> ... </process> |
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]