OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - ( was RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0)


Hi Paco,

There are a few questions we need to answer as outlined in issue 72. I guess it's easy to reach some consensus that for the WSDL1.1 definitions used by BPEL, we need to make sure they are BP1.0 compliant.   I have just sent a set of slides to the list which summarize the BP1.0 recommendations on the use of WSDL1.1. My observation is that being compliant to BP1.0 will help us clarify ambiguities and errors in WSDL1.1, not really restrict us.  

Whether BPEL processes should be only offered as and only consume BP1.0 compliant services is a related but different question. I agree that we should respect layering, but given all the proven interoperability issues with WSDL1.1, I think it worth some further investigation for us to understand better what does that really mean if we make such requirement.

Best Regards, 
Kevin 


-----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.
[KevinLiu] + 1



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.htm) 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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]