[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Why I think a no vote is appropriate
Re-working the WSDL has always seemed to me the least worst solution.
Consider how things might appear to an end-user, confronted with the wsdl
his friend wrote the previous year, and now equipped with BPEL (and some helpful
documentation):
- if we've added the unattached message capability to BPEL,
the user reads about how to work out from the binding what he can access from
BPEL
- if we haven't, he reads about how to work out from the
binding what the "pure abstract" WSDL would be
I'd
expect the thinking involved to be very similar - in the first case, the user
has to work with a kind of virtual "pure abstract" WSDL, since he knows (from
the binding) which business-process-relevant unattached messages are actually
involved with which operation. Writing it out would be safer and clearer
- and perhaps an easier target for tools.
If we
don't change what is in BPEL, should we have a brief non-normative note pointing
out that re-working the WSDL defintiion is occasionally
necessary.
Peter
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]