Re: [wsbpel] Q: guidelines for reliabilityA

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

Ron,

OK - we're on the same page here - was just doing sanity check!

I think the one last Q below is what we need to focus on.  Here's my
proposal.

BPEL uses CPP/CPA as the partner collaboration / configuration
mechanism to formalize interchanges in addition to WSDL, 
where this is necessary.  So the default is WSDL, but people
can supplement that with CPP/CPA.    To support this, add a 
non-normative addendum to the BPEL spec' that then 
gives a default configuration XML instance of a CPP for a 
BPEL process, with the BPEL settings highlighted in bold 
blue font (or similar), and XML comments noted where appropriate
to show possible alternate selections.

That way people have a good start point that should work
for most BPEL processes, but they can adjust it for their
own local needs from there.   Similarly - people wanting more
than the barebones BPEL partner mechanism can use a
CPP to achieve that without breaking their BPEL implementation.

Thanks, DW.
=======================================================

Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove
>>
>It also ensures that we "answer the mail" formally for all
>the QoS parameters and metrics that CPP / CPA provides
>and gives customers the re-assurance that their BPEL
>process connections are managed.
>
Agreed; I did not mean to suggest otherwise. Are you suggesting direct 
incorporation of CPP/A into WS-BPEL?

<