[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
Kevin, The WS-I BP 1.0 profile is very restricted in terms of WSDL bindings: only SOAP over HTTP. On the other hand, it seems that the original BPEL authors had in mind a broad range of possible bindings (see for example the end of section 10, where it talks about a possible non-XML EDI binding of a port type). It might be time to raise a new issue regarding the intended scope of WSDL bindings addressed by the spec. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:44 PM > To: 'Glenn Mi'; Ugo Corda; 'edwink@collaxa.com' > Cc: 'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - > Inconsistent > syntax for query attribute values in spec examples > > > > Glenn made a good point - the use of "type" vs "element" > attribute in wsdl:part may have significant impact on the > binding and the wired message. > > It reminds me that as a group, we may need to ask ourselves > the following questions sooner or later. Based on the answer, > we may need to tune up the WSDL examples used in the current draft. > > - Which version of WSDL do we want to use? WSDL1.1 or WSDL > 1.2 ( or I should say the deliverable of the w3c WSD working > group, it might be called WSDL 2.0 eventually)? > - Do we care about WS-I Basic Profile (BP) 1.0 (see [1])? > - Do we want to indicate a preference for RPC style in our examples? > > Since BPEL only uses the wsdl:portType definition and the > binding definition is typically not available, the last > question may seem irrelevant. But if we want to continue to > use wsdl1.1, we may need to consider being compliant with > WS-I BP1.0, then the wsdl:part definition does have > significant impact on what kind of bindings can be used and > how the wired message may look like. Basically, according to > BP1.0, when soap over http is concerned, > > - a wsdl:part which uses the @type attribute to reference a > schema type can only be used by a RPC style operation > - for RPC style operations, the wired message must have a > wrapper element which is the child of soap:body and has the > same name as the operation. Part accessors have the same name > as the corresponding wsdl:part > > - a wsdl:part which use the @element attribute to refer to a > global element can only be used by a Document style operation > - for Document style operations, in the wired message, the > child of soap:body must be the element referenced by the part > definition > > In most, if not all, of the WSDL examples used in the current > draft, wsdl:part uses @type attribute. According to BP1.0, > *THIS IMPLIES THAT RPC STYLE IS CHOSEN*, I suspect that is > the real intention of the authors. IMHO, as a process > definition language, BPEL should at least provide balanced > number of examples that can be used by document style. > > If wsdl1.2 is to be used, of course the examples need to be > changed, but it will be a different story. Though I am in > favor to use a standard version of WSDL, I am not sure if > it's practical for us to use wsdl1.2 given that we have a > very aggressive schedule and wsdl1.2 is still under heavy > construction. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > [1] > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-Bd > AD.html (section 5.3.1 is most relevant) > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]