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

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Liu, Kevin wrote:

>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.
>  
>
mm1: There is an issue on WSDL 1.2 MEP to BPEL - issue 15. There are 
several other issues related to WSDL. Should we address them as a 
category or group?

>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)
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>  
>