Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 53 - Should include Business Transaction Management (BTM) programming constructs compatible with WS-T, BTP and WS-TXM]

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

> How the context gets carried, and how large a range of functionality can
> be put in context elements with a common ancestral type is another
> question, and one which a particular BPEL script can largely defer the
> WSDL. Allowing too wide a range of functionality might end up just
> re-inventing the soap:header element - the different functions have to
> be distinguished by the uri's, which is how (via namespace uri's)
> headers are distinguished, and a general-purpose context just becomes
> another bag for labelled mixed tricks.  But I'm not sure this is a bpel
> problem.

I agree, but I think it's too early (aka wrong) to try to define how the
context will be propagated (or at least to mandate it). I think defining a
BPEL context element is fine - we should be able to provide an element that
can be carried in a manner defined by whatever BPEL is layered on (e.g.,
WS-C or WS-Context, or WS-...) because at the level of BPEL we aren't
interested in anything other than the BPEL specific context component.

Mark.