OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?


I just wanted to comment on your first assumption below. The "business protocol" extensions in BPEL are very much about describing behavior, as opposed to execution. A BPEL abstract process definition is a useful description of behavior regardless of how the service is implemented. I would even argue that "business protocol" may be an unfortunate name for this given that we're really talking about services in a more general sense. The two usage styles - "executable processes" and "business protocols" can each be used independently or together as appropriate.
 
Regarding your real point, I wonder if a set of standard annotations and extensions within the BPEL document itself would be sufficient. Separating these into different documents seems troubling to me.
 
Tony


From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:45 PM
To: WS BPEL (E-mail)
Subject: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?

Here's a topic I would like to suggest for discussion at the F2F.
 
THE PROBLEM
The problem arises because of three assumptions that I believe are valid:
1. BPEL is an "execution only" language, i.e. it is desgined to be something that can be input into software and run, e.g. using some "BPEL Run Time" software
2. BPEL will often be defined and maintained with the aid of some GUI based "BPEL Design Time" software that allows the process to be visualised.
3. The BPEL Design Time software will contain additional positional and graphical information about the visual representation of the BPEL design that not contained in the BPEL XML definitions.
 
The problem is that this means that exporting a BPEL definition from one BPEL Design Time for input into another will result in a BPEL definition that will not be easily editable as all the graphical information would be lost.
 
In the extreme, for a complex design, it could mean that designer of business processes using BPEL is effectively locked into the BPEL Design Time software provider that they initially choose. This I don't think is a good idea.
 
THE SOLUTION ?
To solve this problem I would like to suggest the setting up of a sub-committe of the TC that has responsibilty for developing a "BPEL Visual Binding" specification which would contain the relevant visual information from the BPEL Design Time. The idea would be that the Visual Binding specification is a separate document to the main BPEL specification. Also BPEL Design Time Implementations could export either:
1. The BPEL XML Definition alone, or
2. The BPEL XML Definition PLUS the BPEL Visual Binding
 
The former could be used for input to a BPEL Run Time and the latter could be input into some other BPEL Design Time.
 
By creating a separate, but related, specification, it should be possible to carry out the work on the BPEL Visual Binding specifcation in parallel, without hindering any work on the main BPEL specification.
 
Regards
 
David
 
 
Director, Product Management, Web Services
Commerce One
4440 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704
mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]