RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Ugo Wrote:

(By the way, in principle some risk exists even in the case of abstract
messages associated with abstract operations. There is nothing in WSDL
1.1 that prevents actual bindings from leaving some message parts out
when it comes to concrete message - so BPEL would have uninitialized
parts in that case too).

Satish:

Well in that case I suggest BP 1.1 should forbid this behavior ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:59 AM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to
values not defined in portType

Satish, you say:

> the other abstract components you speak of are bound to the abstract
interfaces 
> through the even more complex area of binding.  

Sorry, I disagree on the way you put this. These abstract components ARE
part of the WSDL abstract interface.