RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples

["Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>]

Hi Ugo,

You are right that BP 1.0 is only relevant for WSDL1.1 and is only focuses on SOAP/HTTP binding.  I also agree that BPEL should not have the same limitation, and our examples should be applicable to other bindings.

But my point is that soap/http binding is the mostly used binding (especially with the endorsement of BP1.0), and we should be careful not to showing a strong preferences for RPC style in our examples 

My questions in the original message are still valid. If we decide to continue to use wsdl1.1, we may need to open an issue to provide some examples which use wsdl:part defined in xsd elements.

Best Regards, 
Kevin 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:22 PM
To: Liu, Kevin; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
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)
> 
>