Re: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit<sequence> macro)

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Tight coupling to WSDL makes sense because all your interoperability 
problems would be solved using WSDL.

Basically there are two options. You can write the language with 
sufficient abstraction, and write WSDL bindings and hope other people 
would write bindings to other languages. Or you can bank on the fact 
that people are writing bindings to WSDL already. You want to use IDLs, 
the OMG is working on IDL-WSDL bindings. You want to use EJB, J2EE takes 
care of that, and .Net takes care of DCOM.

You want to do EDI? Better chance of finding one of many products that 
support WSDL for EDI (or RN or ebXML) than a product that supports EDI 
for yet-another-binding language.

I think at this point in the lifecycle of Web services, WSDL would be a 
safe bet to adopt for all our messaging needs ;-)

arkin


David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:

>Arkin,
>
>Your point on - BPEL needs to do this and that  - is well taken - but
>tight coupling to say WSDL makes less sense.
>
>What we need to understand is the explicit touch points that
>will make the mechanisms we are defining work.
>
>Then you do bindings from that to WSDL for sure - but overall
>you've now got something that is an open standard - that will
>work with any messaging framework that can support those,
>not just WSDL.
>
>We need to understand the use cases supported, and the 
>boundaries.  Its OK to design something where we say for
>V1.0 - it does this - and it does NOT do that, and that.
>
>And that IS very much the point of developing an OASIS standard
>instead of a specific vendor(s) implementation!
>
>Good standards are robust and open IMHO.
>
>Cheers, DW.
>===========================================================
>Message text written by Assaf Arkin
>  
>
>>If you go all the way to pi-calculus you end up with a situtation where 
>>    
>>
>two systems may decide to use different WSDL operations or construct 
>different messages for the same process definition since there is no 
>interpretations of how names/actions should be mapped to WSDL. So to 
>answer Edwin's question, you lose interoperability , you might as well 
>have no spec.
>
>Or, you can formalize the manner in which WSDL operations are used with 
>a pi-calculus like definition, but then you need to add further rules to 
>the specification. Off the top of my head I can think of two/three rules 
>and I can ensure you they are more complex than the definition of 
>sequence. So while turning the language from a high-level model to a 
>low-level model, you would significantly increase the complexity of the 
>specification.
><
>  
>


-- 
"Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaf Arkin                                          arkin@intalio.com
Intalio Inc.                                           www.intalio.com
The Business Process Management Company                 (650) 577 4700


This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and
may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments
and notify us immediately.