[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0)
answers interleaved Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > Sent: 02 October 2003 16:55 > To: Furniss, Peter; BPEL OASIS > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] > Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0) > > > Please see my answers below. > > Ugo > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:35 AM > > To: Furniss, Peter; BPEL OASIS > > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] > Issue 47 and > > WS-I BP 1.0) > > > > > > n my fight with mailer, I lost the change to the subject ! > > > > treat as issue 72 ! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Furniss, Peter > > > Sent: 02 October 2003 10:57 > > > To: BPEL OASIS > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > (had some arguments with my mailer getting this out - > > > apologies if it eventually turns up twice) > > > > > > > > > From issues list editor: Please follow up this thread with an > > > Issue - 72 > > > - subject, not the Issue 47 one : I'm getting bored with > > > hand-modifying the html to move the links. > > > > > > On the substance (Following are personal views) > > > > > > If the question is, > > > > > > "BPEL should work only with BP-compliant Web services." > > > > > > then I think answer is NO. Are we really saying that > > > end-users would not be able to use BPEL to handle legacy > > > interactions, perhaps using proprietary communications (and > > > thus perhaps proprietary wsdl bindings to express them in > > > bpel-accessible terms). And what of local interactions that > > > are represented to executable BPEL as web services (i.e. as > > > WSDL with a funny binding). Ok, those are binding questions, > > > but if there is an impact on the BPEL-visible aspects, would > > [UC] As I already mentioned before, non SOAP/HTTP bindings > are out of scope for BP 1.0. Please let them be out of our > scope of discussion too. I'm not sure what out of scope effectively means for this question - that's what I was trying to dig for. Is it legitimate to use BPEL for a SOAP/SMTP scenario ? Is desirable to design BPEL so it could be used for such (if such support has an impact, which indeed it might not) > > > we want to disallow it. It might be worth considering what, > > > if anything, we seek to > > > disallow: > > > > > > a) BPEL processes that can work with non-BP web services. > > > > > > b) BPEL engines that support such processes > > > > > > c) BPEL language constructs that could not be used with > > > BP-compliant web services (i.e. that require > > > beyond-*basic*-profile facilities to be used in a real case) > > > > > [UC] I would be very interested in hearing concrete examples of that. I don't know BP 1.0 well enough to be sure. Are there functionalities that BP 1.0 makes impossible (which is entirely reasonable for a basic profile) ? Security ? Reliablitliy ? Transactions ? > > > d) BPEL use-cases that require byeond-basic-profile > > > facilities in their worked-out example entries > > > > > > e) BPEL use-casas that appear to require beyond-basic-profile > > > facilities, but which haven't been worked out in detail yet > > > > > [UC} Same observation. Let's find concrete examples of that, > and then we can discuss. I suspect we won't find any. If you mean that BP 1.0 will be found to be sufficient for all imaginable business interactions, and the only reason anyone would have for not using it would be perversity or a need to align with a legacy object, then yes, there won't be any. But I'm not sure why it's called a Basic profile in that case. > > > the e) : d) distinction is that a business-derived use-case > > > might require BP 1.0-exceeding features (exotic MEPs, say). > > [UC} Again, I don't see our spec covering the use of any exotic MEPs. as I understand it, this is because any exotic MEP can be treated by BPEL as a combination of more basic ones and by turning it round (so a BPEL process "offers" solicit-response by using the other end's request-response and vice versa.) > > > Is this disallowed as a use-case candidate on that ground. Is > > > it allowed in the use-case catalogue, but marked as "deferred > > > for future work" when it's clear the wsdl can't be expressed > > > in bp 1.0-compliant form ? Is it marked as deferred only if > > > the agreed features of BPEL CD-1 [1] are insufficient to > > > implement the use-case ? > > > > > > Actually, I think "interoperability" as a BPEL goal needs > > > very careful thought. This is fundamentally a language for > > > manipulating interoperable services, not an interoperable > > > protocol. The BPEL abstract to *define* interoperable > > > business protocols is enhanced by maximal capability, not > > [UC} Are you saying that it is ok if company A builds BPEL > process PA, and company B builds BPEL process PB, and PA and > PB cannot interact because companies A and B interpreted the > WSDL and SOAP specs in a non-interoperable way? well, as has been said, their problem lies with wsdl and soap, not with BPEL. But I do think we ought to allow BPEL to be used for processes that are communicating other than via BP 1.0. Peter > > > profiling. I suppose I ought to join in the implementation > > > groups discussions. > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > > > > Sent: 02 October 2003 04:39 > > > > To: Francisco Curbera > > > > Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Paco, > > > > > > > > This thread originated from today's meeting discussions. At > > > the time > > > > the UC presentation was made, I brought up the idea of > > having only > > > > BP-compliant WSDL in any examples we provide. > > > > > > > > Later, during the discussion of Issue 47, the question was > > > asked about > > > > what type of WSDL, 1.1 or 1.2, we should be looking at. The > > > > discussion naturally moved to what kind of WSDL 1.1 we > > are talking > > > > about, and the idea was bounced around about stating that > > > BPEL should > > > > work only with BP-compliant Web services. That is the > > > origin of this > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > I agree with you that the UC examples should be our major > > > objective as > > > > far as BP compliance is concerned. Still there are other > > > more subtle > > > > areas where consistency with BP relates directly to > > > decisions we make > > > > regarding BPEL itself. > > > > > > > > For instance, we have been saying that interoperability is an > > > > important aspect of BPEL (it was just being discussed > > > during the first > > > > meeting of the implementation subgroup), but that we should > > > not worry > > > > too much about it and just say that BPEL deals with Web > > > services and > > > > that Web services by definition are supposed to be > > > interoperable. But > > > > how can we say that when we know too well of all the > > > interoperability > > > > problems that have surfaced when only dealing with WSDL 1.1 > > > (and SOAP > > > > 1.1)? So we need to further qualify our reliance on WSDL 1.1 > > > > with the BP 1.0 constraints in order to guarantee (or at > > > > least enhance) BPEL interoperability. > > > > > > > > Another example of BP relevance to BPEL is the resolution > > > of Issue 46. > > > > It would certainly be a bad idea if we said that the > > > namespace of the > > > > part is something other than a null namespace (which > WSDL 1.1 by > > > > itself would allow), when BP 1.0 specifies that a null > namespace > > > > should be associated with the corresponding part accessor > > > element (see > > > > R2735 of BP 1.0). > > > > > > > > Ugo > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:49 PM > > > > > To: Ugo Corda > > > > > Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; > BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a little confused by this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing we should be concerned about is whether BPEL > > > > *prevents* > > > > > anyone from creating or using BP compliant services. > > > > Otherwise, the BP > > > > > only affects the WSDL and XSD definitions on which BPEL > > relies. We > > > > > should then respect the natural layering and leave BP > > > compliance to > > > > > WSDL and XSD authors, and out of BPEL. > > > > > > > > > > OTOH, since the BP is a restriction on the usage of > WSDL 1.1 and > > > > > XSD, and BPEL supports all applicable WSDL 1.1 (except > > > for outbound > > > > > ops and here it > > > > > is consistent with the BP,) I don't believe BPEL prevents > > > > following BP > > > > > directives in any way. Maybe someone can provide an example. > > > > > > > > > > A different thing is whether our usage case examples > > > should contain > > > > > WSDL and XSD definitions that are WS-I compliant. This > > is a good > > > > > idea. > > > > > > > > > > Paco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Ugo Corda" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <UCorda@SeeBeyond To: > > > > > "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>, "Prasad Yendluri" > > > > > > > > > > .com> > > > > > <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, "Eckenfels. Bernd" > > > > > <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> > > > > > cc: > > > > > "BPEL OASIS" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > > > 10/01/2003 02:28 Subject: RE: > > > > > [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, RPC literal would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in > > > > > violation. -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:23 AM > > > > > To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > So for instance the RPC encoded services bound to > > > SOAP/HTTP would be > > > > > > > > in the "in scope but in violation" category? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:18 AM > > > > > To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I mislabeled it as 3) in > > > relation to > > > > > point 1. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should distinguish services that are not > > compliant with > > > > > BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of scope for BP 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > If I have a Web service that is not bound to SOAP/HTTP, > > > then I would > > > > > > > > say it is out of scope for BP 1.0, so it's OK for BPEL > > to interact > > > > > with it. > > > > > > > > > > My point 4 is about services that are within the scope of > > > BP 1.0 and > > > > > > > > still do not comply with its requirements. > > > > > > > > > > Ugo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:09 AM > > > > > To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > I doubt that we can mandate BPEL to be used with BP > > 1.0 compliant > > > > > services only especially given the answer to 1 assuming it is > > > > > correct, and given > > > > > that there are many services today that are not compliant > > > > (e.g., RPC > > > > > encoded ones). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:55 AM > > > > > To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > I see a few separate issues/questions connected to the > > > relationship > > > > > > > > of BP 1.0 and BPEL. > > > > > > > > > > 1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting BPEL to the point that some > > > > of BPEL's > > > > > functionality would not be available? > > > > > > > > > > I cannot think of any such restriction off the top > of my head. > > > > > > > > > > 2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only addresses the > > > SOAP/HTTP binding > > > > > imply that also BPEL should be limited to that type > of binding? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that anybody would imply that. > > > > > > > > > > 3- Should a BPEL process be offered as a Web service that > > > > is BP 1.0 > > > > > compliant? > > > > > > > > > > My answer would be yes. > > > > > > > > > > 3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL use to interacting > > with BP 1.0 > > > > > compliant Web services only? > > > > > > > > > > My personal answer would be yes. But I am a member of > > > WS-I, and I > > > > > understand other people might have different answers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ugo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:39 AM > > > > > To: Prasad Yendluri > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > For the benefit of the non-expert could post a > salient example > > > > > please? Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that would > > > not work if > > > > > BP 1.0 is followed but would work if any WSDL 1.1 > portType is > > > > > allowed. In other > > > > > words, is BP 1.0 a restriction on the WSDL artifacts we use > > > > > or potentially > > > > > on BPEL itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:11 AM > > > > > To: Satish Thatte > > > > > Cc: BPEL OASIS > > > > > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > The sections 5.5 and 5.6 in the basic profile ( > > > > > > > > > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.h > > > tm) are > > > > devoted to binding aspects but, several major sections > including > > > > section 4, other sections of 5 address abstract > aspects of WSDL, > > > > which is a pretty large portion. All those are > > applicable BPEL IMO. > > > > > > > > Prasad > > > > > > > > Satish Thatte wrote: > > > > Most of the BP 1.0 directives are binding related. BP > > > also forbids > > > > outbound operations which BPEL does not use. Can someone > > identify a > > > > directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL? > > > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > > > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le > > ave_workgroup.php. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le > ave_workgroup.php. > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le ave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]