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


> The point I'm making is that BPEL must *only* depend on
> the abstract behavior of a Web service as defined by its portType and
> not on anything else referred to in the bindings.

I would say that the abstract behavior of a Web service is defined by its abstract interface. The portType is just a subset of the WSDL 1.1 abstract interface, because abstract messages are allowed in the abstract interface that are not part of a portType. (Don't blame me for that: your name is on the WSDL 1.1 spec, not mine ;-).

Let me quote here WSDL 1.1, sec. 2.3.2, Abstract vs. Concrete Messages:

"Message definitions are always considered to be an abstract definition of the message content. A message binding describes how the abstract content is mapped into a concrete format. However, in some cases, the abstract definition may match the concrete representation very closely or exactly for one or more bindings, so those binding(s) will supply little or no mapping information. However, another binding of the same message definition may require extensive mapping information. For this reason, it is not until the binding is inspected that one can determine "how abstract" the message really is".

As you can see, it does not say anything about the abstract interface being limited to the portType, nor is that mentioned anywhere else in the spec.

Ugo 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:03 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Satish Thatte; Francisco Curbera
> Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation 
> definitions
> 
> 
> "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > 
> > Fine, so the WSIF client would not be able to manipulate 
> the "Header"
> > abstract message in my example (in other words, WSIF 
> behaves the same
> > way BPEL does).
> > 
> > As I pointed out before, other WS frameworks do not behave that way,
> > and they allow users to directly manipulate the "Header" abstract
> > message in my example (I know for sure because a customer of ours 
> > brought us that type of example asking us to support it in BPEL).
> 
> You're right that this has nothing to do with WSIF.
> 
> > You might say that using WSDL 1.1 that way is a bad idea. I am not
> > arguing with that. All I am saying is that it is perfectly 
> legitimate
> > to use it that way according to WSDL 1.1 (the spec actually 
> explicitly
> > calls out that case in sec. 3.7, when it says "The 
> referenced message
> > need not be the same as the message that defines the SOAP body").
> 
> I'd be the last person to say don't use WSDL .. :-). However, WSDL
> suggest a certain separation of abstract behavior from 
> binding-dependent
> behavior. The point I'm making is that BPEL must *only* depend on
> the abstract behavior of a Web service as defined by its portType and
> not on anything else referred to in the bindings. That's the only
> way to really enable the multiprotocol abstractions enabled by WSDL -
> otherwise BPEL (or whoever is using WSDL) is intrinsically tied to
> one binding ..
> 
> I don't think there's a way around this- BPEL can either adhere 
> to the principles of WSDL or not. I would obviously recommend that
> it absolutely adhere to them. If its going to, there's no way to
> allow a BPEL process to access/manipulate any binding-dependent 
> information as such information is simply not available until 
> much later in the lifecycle of process authoring/deployment/execution.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 


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