Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 11 Your opinion requested

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Ron,

Definately my thinking as well.   You asked some good questions - 
see my notes below.

Thanks, DW.

Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove
> 
David,

    +1, especially on externalising the mapping. We already attempt to 
loosely couple the process definition to the document types, via
properties.

>>> Concur

    Is the CAM ExternalMapping solution sufficiently stand-alone that we 
could adopt it for use in BPEL? (I suspect not, but optimism springs 
eternal.)

>>> Interesting thoughts.  The CAM structure is modular with sections - so
there is nothing to stop you just having the minimal set of the Structures
section and the Mappings section.  We'd have to add this to the spec'
as a lightweight extension usage case - but technically I don't see
too many issues to doing this.  We already have the notion of Levels
to control the feature set we expect in an implementation.  And we already
have the notion of an <import> of a sub-assembly - so infact using
CAM in this way would just be like doing an <import> into a BPEL script
of the Mapping section only - plus whatever additional pieces you felt
necessary to complete enough of the semantics to make the map of
content work.
<<<

    With an extensible mechanism, we will have to establish which 
particular mapping types MUST be supported in order to assure 
portability of definitions. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up 
with such a list; I'd suggest XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 for starters. The 
list can be expanded in future versions of BPEL as things like XQuery 
and XSLT/XPath 2.0 are adopted, but not lock implementors into a 
restricted universe of options.

>>> Agreed.  We use the Level approach in CAM to document 
 what implementations need to do at each level to be conformant.

<<<