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

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

In your example, there are two abstract interfaces (according to my definition):

ai1 = {pt1, m5} 

ai2 = {pt2, m1, m2, m3, m4}

A particular binding for ai1 is free to bind m5 parts to the wire message. (It is also free to select any subset of m1-m4 parts).
Similarly, a binding for ai2 is free to bind any of the parts from messages m1-m4 to the wire message. (It is also free to bind any subset of m5 parts).

I don't see what the problem is with that.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Ron Ten-Hove
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation 
> definitions
> 
> 
> "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > 
> > Sorry, that is not what I meant. For me an abstract endpoint is 
> > the union of a particular portType plus all the abstract messages
> > defined outside a portType (end of definition of an 
> abstract endpoint).
> 
> Defined outside the portType in what context? In the same WSDL 
> document? In that document plus all imported documents? In all 
> WSDL documents for the same namespace?
> 
> For example, if I have *one* WSDL with:
> 
>     <message name=m1 .../>
>     <message name=m2 .../>
>     <message name=m3 .../>
>     <message name=m4 .../>
>     <message name=m5 .../>
> 
>     <portType name=pt1>
>         <operation name=p1_o1> <input message=m1/> </operation>
>         <operation name=p1_o2> <input message=m2/> </operation>
>         <operation name=p1_o3> <input message=m3/> </operation>
>         <operation name=p1_o4> <input message=m4/> </operation>
>     </portType>
> 
>     <portType name=pt2>
>         <operation name=p2_o1> <input message=m5/> </operation>
>     </portType>
> 
>     <binding name=b1 type=pt1/>
> 
>     <binding name=b2 type=pt2/>
> 
>     <service name=s1> 
>         <port name=p1 binding=b1/>
>         <port name=p2 binding=b2/>
>     </service>
> 
> Now is the abstract endpoint for port p1 = {pt1, m5} and that for
> p2 = {pt2, m1, m2, m3, m4} ???
> 
> That makes absolutely *no* sense! 
> 
> The point is that WSDL documents can have more than one portType
> and more than just the messages that are defined for that portType.
> If you don't stick to the discipline that a portType is the 
> abstract interface (which I suggest is amply clear in WSDL 1.1
> even though you don't agree) then all hell breaks loose.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
>