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

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

Ron,

 

> Can we distinguish clearly between "proper" (architecturally sound) use of WSDL 1.1,

> and legalistic (mis)interpretations of the same? If we can, then I suggest we concentrate

> on the former, and leave the latter to be addressed elsewhere. Is this unreasonable?

 

My position is that a spec which is intended to promote interoperability should be explicit enough not to generate ambiguous interpretations. If it is not, the last thing we should do is to blame the users of the spec for interpreting it in a way that disagrees with ours.

 

> My memory, aided by a search through my archive of the message traffic for wsbpel,

> has failed to recall this choice being made. Can you give me a pointer to where this

> decision was made? (Perhaps I am unwittingly covering old ground in this discussion.)

 

The whole resolution of issue 72 was so painstakingly worded to allow for non-BP-compliant applications to be supported. It is the result of many discussions where people expressed strong opposition to forcing BPEL to only support BP-compliant applications.

 

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:24 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions

Ugo,

Ugo Corda wrote:

Ron,

 

The fact remains that the example I mentioned under issue 77 is a completely standard-compliant service (even though it is probably not one we would use as a recommended usage pattern). In fact the existence of such a case is explicitly called out in sec. 3.7 of the WSDL spec. I agree with you that is should not have been allowed to start with, but unfortunately it's out there now and we simply cannot say that it's non-standard.

    Can we distinguish clearly between "proper" (architecturally sound) use of WSDL 1.1, and legalistic (mis)interpretations of the same? If we can, then I suggest we concentrate on the former, and leave the latter to be addressed elsewhere. Is this unreasonable?

 

In my view it's just a matter of whether we want to support legacy applications or not. Again, my understanding is that this TC decided we want to support legacy cases even when they are deprecated by later specs like WS-I BP.

    My memory, aided by a search through my archive of the message traffic for wsbpel, has failed to recall this choice being made. Can you give me a pointer to where this decision was made? (Perhaps I am unwittingly covering old ground in this discussion.)

Cheers,
-Ron