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: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions


Ron,
 
My quick answers to your questions below:
 
> do we let individual implementations "fix" it their own ways?
 
That is always an option for new implementations. But what about legacy ones? Some companies may not be in the condition of fixing their existing implementations.
 
> Will this affect compatibility when we move forward to WSDL 2?
Good question, but probably too early to ask. The latest indication I have seen from the WSD WG is for a Recommendation time frame of middle 2005 (more than one year and a half away - who knows what will actually end up in that spec by then?).
 
Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:24 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions

Satish,

    I'm glad you appreciated my little joke; I actually have a picture of this sketched on a whiteboard of what is otherwise a very serious-looking architecture diagram, where a spigot serves to rinse the SOAP off in-bound messages. It seems the only part of the diagram that everyone remembered afterwards! It certainly made the point I was making more memorable.

    More seriously, I am still trying to work through the implications of Yaron's proposal concerning the optional headers. This is partly a SOAP issue, and is partly created by the inadequacies of WSDL. When I gave a presentation at JavaOne earlier this year on choreography, collaboration and orchestration (with BPEL taking an important place), I stated that one of the motivations behind some current WS-related initiatives is to "fix" WSDL 1.1. Here is yet another example of the same. For me the real question is, do we absolutely need to "fix" this WSDL deficiency in BPEL? Or do we let individual implementations "fix" it their own ways? Will this affect interoperability? Will this affect compatiblity when we move forward to WSDL 2?  I certainly agree with Yaron that we should worry about these things, but I am still trying to answer them for myself before trying to power-wash off that last bit of soap... ;-)

Cheers,
-Ron

Satish Thatte wrote:

Ron,

With your idea of rinsing SOAP off the body of BPEL, your agreement with Yaron also amounts to rejecting Yaron’s proposals for dealing with optional headers.  I assume that is intentionally left unsaid .. ;-)

Satish



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